What class years are safest in a recession? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Not sure about class years, but practice group wise it seems energy / projects work is off the charts. A lot of LinkedIn recruiter posts for mid-level lateral opportunities are in renewables or infrastructure from what I can tell.

[nealric]

Also it's very rare for a 1st year to get fired for cause -- they are usually given slack to be useless for a year or two. So it gets noticed when they get fired. And they (esp the KJDs) probably haven't learned the art of pretending you didn't get fired (or don't want to pretend since as noted it's not norm to fire a first year). So a first year will come here or fishbowl or ATL etc; or will just post under real name on social media saying I was fired and I didn't deserve it. Maybe they will maybe they won't but firms are afraid they will.

Whereas a 4th year will go quietly and instead negotiate more website time and think about how to move on with nobody knowing that when it came time to trim the fat, he was the fat.

First years being laid off was relatively common during the great recession. A firm facing financial pressure will be loathe to keep people around to be useless for a year or two. In a bad economy, you will also see cuts at review time after year one and year two (with the year two cuts often being particularly brutal).

Regarding practice groups: some practice groups will be stronger than others, but it's worth noting for the more junior folks that being a junior in a strong group will not necessarily save you. I saw junior bankruptcy/restructuring folks let go during the great recession even as the partners were billing 3000+. The issue was that they simply didn't have the bandwidth to integrate/train newbies and the firm was trying to lean out junior ranks across the board.

[Anonymous User]

Here's a data point sourced from AMLAW 200 headcount numbers (excluding equity and non-equity partners) from 2006 - 2017:*

Number of non-partners per year in the current 2022 V20 firms:

2006: 12549
2007: 13335
2008: 14676 [recession year]
2009: 14286 [recession year]
2010: 14582
2011: 15067
2012: 15400
2013: 15411
2014: 15746
2015: 16004
2016: 16536
2017: 17363

Number of non-partners per year in the AMLAW 200:

2006: 59967
2007: 64197
2008: 67236 [recession year]
2009: 65130 [recession year]
2010: 67241
2011: 68378
2012: 68934
2013: 72235
2014: 71891
2015: 71306
2016: 72735
2017: 74346

*Obviously, this doesn't tell the whole story - firm consolidations are just one reason to view this info as a data point, not the entire gospel.

[nealric]

Here's a data point sourced from AMLAW 200 headcount numbers (excluding equity and non-equity partners) from 2006 - 2017:*

Number of non-partners per year in the current 2022 V20 firms:

2006: 12549
2007: 13335
2008: 14676 [recession year]
2009: 14286 [recession year]
2010: 14582
2011: 15067
2012: 15400
2013: 15411
2014: 15746
2015: 16004
2016: 16536
2017: 17363

Number of non-partners per year in the AMLAW 200:

2006: 59967
2007: 64197
2008: 67236 [recession year]
2009: 65130 [recession year]
2010: 67241
2011: 68378
2012: 68934
2013: 72235
2014: 71891
2015: 71306
2016: 72735
2017: 74346

*Obviously, this doesn't tell the whole story - firm consolidations are just one reason to view this info as a data point, not the entire gospel.

Keep in mind that there is a new graduating class every year, so periods like 2008 to 2009 where head count goes down results in a precipitous drop in recruiting.

[Chubbyleaous]

Judge Harry Pregerson:

"For now, federal law is blind to the wisdom of a future day."

If you could reflect on that it may help.

[Anonymous User]

I think this is going to be group dependent. The midlevels in my group are not going to be cut. The partners depend on them heavily. We’re already seeing juniors with no work and partners explicitly not reaching out to juniors in favor of midlevels. From the perspective of my group, I think class of 2020 and 2021 are very vulnerable.

Same for my group. The 2019s are able to handle a lot of smaller tasks without supervision and to keep deals moving, which provides a great deal of value to the team. The 2020s generally can't do that yet.

Their saving grace may be that our 2021 class is regarded to be one of the worst in group history. There are not only partners but also seniors and midlevels who would happily walk some of them out of the door.

[Anonymous User]

I think first years are beyond safe. It just looks so bad to fire them. Second years, somewhat the same. Definitely not really profitable yet, but they just started so even if they are mediocre, there is still a lot of room in improvement. Things start to get dicier with third and fourth years. They should be in the position of starting to lead workstreams on their own and do so adequately. But I think it is mainly the fifth and sixth years that should be careful. They are relatively expensive and if they don't pull their weight (they are expected to lead things on their own) then what is the point? Of course, if they are all amazing, then third/fourth are the ones to go. If they are all amazing as well, then of course fifth/sixth go, because they are more expensive.

I think 7th and above ones are (hopefully) immensely qualified and have drank the koolaid. They should be there because they are integral.

[jotarokujo]

I think this is going to be group dependent. The midlevels in my group are not going to be cut. The partners depend on them heavily. We’re already seeing juniors with no work and partners explicitly not reaching out to juniors in favor of midlevels. From the perspective of my group, I think class of 2020 and 2021 are very vulnerable.

Same for my group. The 2019s are able to handle a lot of smaller tasks without supervision and to keep deals moving, which provides a great deal of value to the team. The 2020s generally can't do that yet.

Their saving grace may be that our 2021 class is regarded to be one of the worst in group history. There are not only partners but also seniors and midlevels who would happily walk some of them out of the door.

curious, what exactly makes them so bad? is it more incompetence or lack of effort?

[Anonymous User]

Sadly in my experience, it is often both

[Anonymous User]

curious, what exactly makes them so bad? is it more incompetence or lack of effort?

Prior anon. It’s effort and attitude. No one expects them to know anything, but they are nonresponsive, go awol on deals near closing, generally don’t improve or seem interested in improving, etc

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

curious, what exactly makes them so bad? is it more incompetence or lack of effort?

Prior anon. It’s effort and attitude. No one expects them to know anything, but they are nonresponsive, go awol on deals near closing, generally don’t improve or seem interested in improving, etc

With all the hand wringing about paying the 2020 summer class, delayed start dates, etc. I think firms did an awful job with 2021. When you treat folks like burdensome charity cases that will lose you money (oh no! Money!) you can’t be surprised when they later treat the whole job like a transaction (least work for a fixed salary) rather than as a serious professional relationship.

[Anonymous User]

This isn’t a 9-5 job though. The people who behave as if they are entitled to the biglaw salary while quiet quitting are in for a rude awakening…

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This isn’t a 9-5 job though. The people who behave as if they are entitled to the biglaw salary while quiet quitting are in for a rude awakening…

If people suck they may very well be fired. I don’t suck so it’s a non issue for me, but the other side to the story is that firms’ management of juniors ranges from bad to non-existent

[Anonymous User]

This isn’t a 9-5 job though. The people who behave as if they are entitled to the biglaw salary while quiet quitting are in for a rude awakening…

If people suck they may very well be fired. I don’t suck so it’s a non issue for me, but the other side to the story is that firms’ management of juniors ranges from bad to non-existent

If there's not enough work to go around, doesn't matter if you suck or don't suck, you're getting canned. And unless you're a mid/senior, trust me, you're fungible and it's irrelevant that you "don't suck."

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This isn’t a 9-5 job though. The people who behave as if they are entitled to the biglaw salary while quiet quitting are in for a rude awakening…

If people suck they may very well be fired. I don’t suck so it’s a non issue for me, but the other side to the story is that firms’ management of juniors ranges from bad to non-existent

If there's not enough work to go around, doesn't matter if you suck or don't suck, you're getting canned. And unless you're a mid/senior, trust me, you're fungible and it's irrelevant that you "don't suck."

So when there's not enough work to go around, everyone gets canned? That's an absurd contention. Work tends to funnel toward people who suck less, even among juniors. As a general rule there's always some work to be done at a big law firm. The reason that the upcoming layoff-palooza will be focused on mids/seniors is that (A) they cost more and (B) many of them suck nearly as bad as juniors.

[Anonymous User]

Can we assume that first years in structured assignment/rotation systems that last 12-18 months won't be fired during that timeframe, even if their hours are low due to the economy?

[Anonymous User]

Can we assume that first years in structured assignment/rotation systems that last 12-18 months won't be fired during that timeframe, even if their hours are low due to the economy?

No, I don't think that's a safe assumption. By the same logic, it's not really "fair" to lay off any first years, as they are not responsible for the firm having or not having work, but plenty of first years were let go in the great recession anyway. If they are gonna lay off first years, I don't think they are gonna decide not to do it because it's not "fair" that you got rotated into a slow group. I would think they will reassign you if they want to keep you, but I wouldn't assume you are safe.

Huge caveat that I'm at a firm that's entirely free market from day one, and that didn't do any layoffs in the last recession (countercyclical practice focus and ultraconservative financials). So I'm going off what I observed at the time, but not personal experience.

[Anonymous User]

This isn’t a 9-5 job though. The people who behave as if they are entitled to the biglaw salary while quiet quitting are in for a rude awakening…

If people suck they may very well be fired. I don’t suck so it’s a non issue for me, but the other side to the story is that firms’ management of juniors ranges from bad to non-existent

If there's not enough work to go around, doesn't matter if you suck or don't suck, you're getting canned. And unless you're a mid/senior, trust me, you're fungible and it's irrelevant that you "don't suck."

So when there's not enough work to go around, everyone gets canned? That's an absurd contention. Work tends to funnel toward people who suck less, even among juniors. As a general rule there's always some work to be done at a big law firm. The reason that the upcoming layoff-palooza will be focused on mids/seniors is that (A) they cost more and (B) many of them suck nearly as bad as juniors.

Do you guys really have a surplus of mids and seniors (setting aside their quality)? My V30 has basically a couple dozen mids and seniors staffing all cases and we’re woefully understaffed re: non-junior associates. Doesn’t seem like much slack to cut

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This isn’t a 9-5 job though. The people who behave as if they are entitled to the biglaw salary while quiet quitting are in for a rude awakening…

If people suck they may very well be fired. I don’t suck so it’s a non issue for me, but the other side to the story is that firms’ management of juniors ranges from bad to non-existent

If there's not enough work to go around, doesn't matter if you suck or don't suck, you're getting canned. And unless you're a mid/senior, trust me, you're fungible and it's irrelevant that you "don't suck."

So when there's not enough work to go around, everyone gets canned? That's an absurd contention. Work tends to funnel toward people who suck less, even among juniors. As a general rule there's always some work to be done at a big law firm. The reason that the upcoming layoff-palooza will be focused on mids/seniors is that (A) they cost more and (B) many of them suck nearly as bad as juniors.

Do you guys really have a surplus of mids and seniors (setting aside their quality)? My V30 has basically a couple dozen mids and seniors staffing all cases and we’re woefully understaffed re: non-junior associates. Doesn’t seem like much slack to cut

Well there are mids and seniors who actually play their intended roles for which they’re being paid, and there are some who don’t. Latter group is vulnerable to extent they exist

[Anonymous User]

On a related note, does it seem to anyone that reviews are happening earlier this year? Ours are typically done after the fiscal year end but it seems like people in my group are having them this month. This is after years of basically having to ask for a review because folks were so busy billing and the partners couldn't be bothered.

[Anonymous User]

On a related note, does it seem to anyone that reviews are happening earlier this year? Ours are typically done after the fiscal year end but it seems like people in my group are having them this month. This is after years of basically having to ask for a review because folks were so busy billing and the partners couldn't be bothered.

Not at my firm. There’s been a greater push for more feedback though.

Maybe I’m imagining things but it seems like this year’s incoming class is far more keen and responsive than the rising 2nd years (recession fears?). Most of the rising 2nd years that I’ve worked with behave as if they are entitled to the job (and the salary). A few 2nd years have even gone MIA during signings.