Anonymous User wrote:What do you guys think is worse: (1) No SA offer or (2) Fire JA in less than a year?
With the internet being like it is, I don't see how firms will be able to no-offer SA's anymore, or continue doing what Firm X just did... it is not worth it.
See, now this is why law students are still naive about firms and how much they care about their reputations with students and associates. Exhibit A is Latham, which as I mentioned, was the basis for the term "lathaming." What is their reputation now? Aren't plenty of people bidding on them and hoping to get a job.
Firms care about offer rates and keeping them high, because no-offer rates make the firm look like it is failing. A high no-offer rate indicates that business is bad and they over filled their summer class. But if they hire people and then cut them through stealth lay-offs, it doesn't have the same effect at all. These stealth lay-offs of first years are much worse for the associate. A no offer is really bad too, but having a job and losing it after a few month can be the end of careers depending on timing (not for OP's husband, but for other people).
The firms are gearing up to make offers to SAs and to start their next class within a month or two after the bar ( unless more deferrals?) will they take on another current 1st year if their business is slow? Very tough spot for a firm to put an associate in. They should at least try to keep people for 2 years so they can possibly lateral.
But firms only care about PPP. (Although if they don't have the business and don't see business picking up, they do need to protect the partnership)