Never Forget: Latham laid off hundreds in 2009 Forum

[12262010]

.

[PKSebben]

.

[12262010]

classy to adopt Holocaust lingo in referring to Lathaming.

????

dear god you have a retarded.

[PKSebben]

.

[12262010]

.

[NYAssociate]

.

[NYAssociate]

.

[12262010]

Latham NY at CLS:
Bids: 134
Interviews: 91
Callbacks received: 34
Callbacks accepted: 13
Extended offers: 5
Accepted offers: 1

91 CLSers applied to Latham in 2009. Last I checked, 400-91 does not equal 90%.

last I checked, lathaming occurred in 2009. and, last I checked, I was using anecdotal evidence. also, CHECK YOU ACCEPTED OFFERS.

[etlien]

Latham's layoffs will have no long-term effect on the firm, no matter how much the XOXO dudes think their Bob Dell meme has play in Peoria.

Exactly. Most of our generation doesn't remember that Shearman was the only firm to layoff in 2000-2001, and no one here knows the names of firms who laid off brutally in the recession of the early 90s. Like Stephanie Grace's email, events like this will quickly fade away.

(1) The phrase "to latham" is practically part of the mainstream parlance; (2) clients surely know that Latham had issues which, even if they've been addressed (or alleged to have been addressed), reflect poorly upon the overall firm. (3) Law students have practically been beaten over the head with the anti-Latham line here, on ATL, and elsewhere.

Since when do clients care that a firm fired its associates? If anything, they'll appreciate it. Do you even know what clients care about? Here's an advice for the year: What clients want from a firm AREN'T the same things as what prospective associates want or care about.

This seems questionable, if image wasn't important to law firms, why would there be stealth layoffs? Firms would just come right out with the axe and butcher associates. I think clients do care whether firms fire associates, its a sign of financial weakness and instability, why give work to a firm thats cleaning house where there are firms out there who don't have to. Obviously, firing associates > having to close shop, but being able to survive a crisis without having to resort to firing signals a viable business model, which I am sure is a plus from a client perspective. In banking at least from what I have gathered, firing is pretty last resort too, its almost always preferable to let contracts lapse or make it known to people they are no welcomed and have them resign.

[Anonymous User]

I heard from an insider that Latham's decision was slightly more nuanced than "greedy partners decided to lay off associates rather than taking a PPP hit" It's not like there was a firm-wide meeting at which the partners voted to protect their $ interest at the expense of the junior lawyers... At many firms including Latham, these decisions belong solely to the management.

According to my source, some time in 2008, several rainmaker partners strongly suggested that the firm guarantee their respective boom-time earning levels. As a result of ITE in 2008 and the bleak prospects of 2009, the management had no choice but to cut costs and/or adjust its equity distribution to give these rainmakers more shares. The latter process would have been complicated, more costly, and caused a lot of partner unrest (because when the firm's profit is shrinking, partner earnings are at best a zero-sum game). The management went with the less difficult route and laid off associates.

I am not suggesting that this background should make you feel any more comfortable with Latham. In the end, the firm did demonstrate its willingness to sacrifice 1st years' careers for $. Nevertheless, I was astonished to find out that it was a handful of individuals who "forced" the decision, rather than the entire partnership or the management alone.

[NYAssociate]

.

[12262010]

Lathaming occurred before people at cls had bid for interviews. Also, you said 90% didn't "apply," not 90% didn't accept.

Now you're just being silly.

check the context of 90%. it was merely in reference to pksebben's original post. I never claimed to be making a precise calculation. I have the stats on my computer.

[NYAssociate]

.

[12262010]

Please, please, please stop doing this. Not being precise means rounding up from 87% to 90%, not from 75% to 90% ( and you're lucky I'm just looking at intrviews, not bids). Just acknowledge that Pksebben and I cqlled you out on your blatant bull, and movement with dignity.

QF... are you drunk?

no, you really failed to comprehend the tone of my post, but, if it makes you feel better I can pretend you've won.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Unemployed]

TBF, it's am ambiguity fail on both PK and booya's parts:

90% OF T14 LAW STUDENTS WILL BEAT THEIR OWN PETS TO DEATH WITH A BLOODY LIMB THEY SEVERED FROM THEIR MOTHER IF IT MEANT GETTING A CHANCE TO WORK AT LATHAM.

Does this statement apply to 90% of students at any T14 (e.g. 90% of Cornell as well as 90% of Yale?); or 90% of all T14 students combined?

no, 90% of people at CLS didn't apply to work at that shithole.

90% of CLS didn't apply, but 89% might have; or 90% affirmatively didn't apply, leaving only 10% who might have applied?

[12262010]

I don't really care about winning or losing. I'm just here to help. No ego to bruise. You were just wrong, and people called you out on it. Instead of being graceful about it, you just whined instead. This just doesn't reflect well on you, no matter how nicely you dress it up. I recommend having an offer in your hand before resorting to this conduct, if you must.

LOL. k, bai now.

[12262010]

TBF, it's am ambiguity fail on both PK and booya's parts:

90% OF T14 LAW STUDENTS WILL BEAT THEIR OWN PETS TO DEATH WITH A BLOODY LIMB THEY SEVERED FROM THEIR MOTHER IF IT MEANT GETTING A CHANCE TO WORK AT LATHAM.

Does this statement apply to 90% of students at any T14 (e.g. 90% of Cornell as well as 90% of Yale?); or 90% of all T14 students combined?

no, 90% of people at CLS didn't apply to work at that shithole.

90% of CLS didn't apply, but 89% might have; or 90% affirmatively didn't apply, leaving only 10% who might have applied?

DEAR GOD.

[badfish]

--ImageRemoved--

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts for approaching an upcoming interview with White & Case, considering its history of layoffs and partner defections?

[Chad3849]

To those defending Latham let me explain a few things. There has been article after article providing that layoffs usually backfire. They don't save much money and then they end up hurting the firm in the long run thanks to high turnover and reputation damage.

Latham is already dealing with both of these problems. While being overstaffed is a drag on profits, so is paying recruiter fees to replace midlevel after midlevel, which is exactly what's happening. There was an article in The Lawyer where a market consultant in Manhattan said this about Latham. I also have a friend in the NY office. He says things are awful there.

After the layoffs, Latham also immediately fell 10 points in the Vault rankings, which the Vault editor described as an "unprecedented" drop. I'll be pretty surprised if they don't fall farther again once the 2010 rankings come out.

The layoffs also reflect the poor management of the firm. Latham was hiring even in late 2008. They hired a bunch of partners at top dollar whose practices soon dried up because the economy tanked (ie. derivatives). As a result of this they fired about 45% of the associates in their NY office. They fired a huge number in LA also, and then less throughout the rest of the offices.

Also, as others have pointed out, Latham laid off all these people, including a ton of first years (a little over half the class in NY, a third in LA), after repeatedly promising that they wouldn't.

Latham is not "lean and mean" because of the mass execution. Rather, they are a poorly managed firm operating in a weakened condition because of the layoffs.

While it makes sense to take an offer there if you don't have other options, this is not a place where I'd actually want to go work.

[Chad3849]

I heard from an insider that Latham's decision was slightly more nuanced than "greedy partners decided to lay off associates rather than taking a PPP hit" It's not like there was a firm-wide meeting at which the partners voted to protect their $ interest at the expense of the junior lawyers... At many firms including Latham, these decisions belong solely to the management.

According to my source, some time in 2008, several rainmaker partners strongly suggested that the firm guarantee their respective boom-time earning levels. As a result of ITE in 2008 and the bleak prospects of 2009, the management had no choice but to cut costs and/or adjust its equity distribution to give these rainmakers more shares. The latter process would have been complicated, more costly, and caused a lot of partner unrest (because when the firm's profit is shrinking, partner earnings are at best a zero-sum game). The management went with the less difficult route and laid off associates.

I am not suggesting that this background should make you feel any more comfortable with Latham. In the end, the firm did demonstrate its willingness to sacrifice 1st years' careers for $. Nevertheless, I was astonished to find out that it was a handful of individuals who "forced" the decision, rather than the entire partnership or the management alone.

So in the future a handful of greedy partners may force awful decisions for the firm? How much do you want to bet these are the partners who hop from firm to firm every few years to join the place that offers slightly more PPP. Latham doesn't sound very stable at all. Many economists are predicting that the coming decade will be like the 1970s with recessions every few years instead of every 7 or 8 like before since there are so many debt issues to work out. These will be the guys debating whether to rescind your offer or can you as a first year when some southeastern country defaults on its debt and we're back into recession.

[Anonymous User]

From what I've read, I'm under the impression the LATHAMINGS were particularly brutal because they had absolutely no sympathy to the laid-off associates as they ruined their biglaw careers.

EDIT: In the middle of typing this post Bob Dell crashed in through my window and Lathamed me, mid-fucking-sentence.

Latham was actually better than most at least in that, IIRC, they admitted the layoffs were not really performance-based but had to do with the failing economy.

That's Latham's PR spin. Latham Lathamed about 200 associates stealthily in January 2009. They told anyone who would listen that these cuts were performance based even though for many of them the reasons seemed pretty trumped up (ie always had good reviews, then suddenly told not performing). They then Lathamed the Latham 190 in February 2009. They continued laying people off quietly throughout the rest of the year.

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether Latham says they're performance based or not. Anyone who gets laid off has a really, really hard time finding another job. Law firms are so used to layoffs as usual that they just infer that you were a screw up. Even the first years who were at the firm for only several months while there was no work were maligned with the Lathamed stigma.

What's most important is having a notice period that is long enough to allow the lathamed to look for a job without having to say they were laid off. The people laid off in the open round had 0 days notice and did not get a period to search while being able to maintain that they were still employed. This made everyone's search much harder than it needed to be. The 0 days notice move was motivated by the firm just wanting to get all the laid off people the heck out as quickly as possible A lot of firms gave a notice period so Latham handled the layoffs relatively poorly.

[Frogger293]

From what I've read, I'm under the impression the LATHAMINGS were particularly brutal because they had absolutely no sympathy to the laid-off associates as they ruined their biglaw careers.

EDIT: In the middle of typing this post Bob Dell crashed in through my window and Lathamed me, mid-fucking-sentence.

Latham was actually better than most at least in that, IIRC, they admitted the layoffs were not really performance-based but had to do with the failing economy.

And they paid out 6 months worth of salary. Much more than other firms.

But the main point is still credited.

Latham's severance was not that great. Market severance was 4 months and that's what most firms were paying. Latham also deducted everyone's accrued vacation pay from their severance, which made the severance more like 5 months of pay, which is a measley one month above market. Keep in mind that about 40-45% of the associates in Latham's NY office were laid off. This included half of the first and second year classes. Latham also had huge layoffs in LA, and a third of the first years in that office were laid off. DC and Chicago also laid off a number of first years.

[Frogger293]

I don't think layoffs are indicative of anything other than firm health. Latham's pulling the trigger doesn't mean they're more trigger happy than, say, S&C or Wachtell. Those firms would've taken drastic measures too if they suffered in a similar way.

It's all about being at the right place at the right time, and that is largely out of your control. I don't think there's anything wrong with going to Latham at this point for that reason.

credited. Additionally, most of you will not have the luxury of choosing a firm based on who it laid off. If you even have one offer -- from Latham! -- you should count yourself lucky.

That is false. Some firms are well run and just about never have large layoffs. These are firms like Debevoise, Wachtell, DPW, Covington, and a number of others. Heck, even SKADDEN offered sabbaticals in lieu of Lathaming. Firms like Latham and Cadwalader expand when there is work to make as much as possible, and then contract mercilessly during downturns. What matters is having a mix of practice group strengths that will make you profitable during a boom and a downturn. Also important is long term thinking by the partnership. That is, the partnership will take actions that will keep the firm strong in the long run even if that means taking a temporary hit to profits. Layoffs help profits in the short term, but at the expense of long term profitability.

Latham was and is poorly balanced. Their strengths are in cyclical areas and they're weak in countercyclical areas. They also staff up and increase leverage during booms despite what will be their inevitable need to fire heavily during downturns. Cadwalader is guilty of the same thing. Latham also is not strong enough of a firm so they're always trying to trade up when it comes to partners. These are guys who'll jump ship for marginally higher short term PPP. This means they face more pressure to staff up during good times, and to make huge cuts during downturns to keep PPP high enough to keep these people. The firm hopping partners don't care what it does to the firm, because they'll just leave for someplace elseif the layoffs harm the firm in the long run.

In other words, layoffs are built into Latham's business model. As someone else mentioned in this thread, during the next decade we're supposed to get a number of recessions which will occur every few years. That means there will probably be a number of times when it may be tempting for firms to lay you off or rescind your offer. If you don't have options and latham or cadwalader is your only offer, then by all means take it. But don't subscribe to this nonsense about how your risk of being laid off is the same everywhere, all that matters is the timing. That is just false. I mean, how many first years did Wachtell lay off?