Incoming Associates Getting Deferred Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

I really doubt that offers will be rescinded this time around. You see law firms which are in a bad spot choosing to cut salaries instead of lay off attorneys. For me, this demonstrates three things: they are worried about the PR fallout from totally screwing people In the midst of a pandemic (which they’d be doing if they rescinded offers), relatedly it seems they learned a serious lesson from their behavior in 2009, and also that they anticipate that this will all bounce back and they’ll need to scale up capacity quick to keep up with demand.

[2020Graduate]

Latham is notorious for slashing at least 440 employees (lawyers and staff) during the last recession, but remains a highly prestigious firm (https://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationw ... 250-staff/).

Same thing with Jones Day. Besides its firings, JD is one of the only v100 firms that uses black box compensation and JD faces constant lawsuits alleging sex, race, nationality, and pay discrimination. Yet in the same way Latham maintains its prestige, Jones Day, year after year, gets awards like best law firm brand (https://www.law360.com/articles/1256376 ... r-4th-year).

So what will defer firms from bad behavior when many will still get in line to be at the firm responsible for the phrase Latham'd or where they're likely to be treated like shit (JD)? The reality is law graduates need jobs, as the fears and desperation in this thread and most threads on the front page of this employment forum show. These firms offer jobs with 190K salaries (maybe 19.0K for JD, who knows with the Blackbox?).

[LHand1993]

Latham is notorious for slashing at least 440 employees (lawyers and staff) during the last recession, but remains a highly prestigious firm (https://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationw ... 250-staff/).

Same thing with Jones Day. Besides its firings, JD is one of the only v100 firms that uses black box compensation and JD faces constant lawsuits alleging sex, race, nationality, and pay discrimination. Yet in the same way Latham maintains its prestige, Jones Day, year after year, gets awards like best law firm brand (https://www.law360.com/articles/1256376 ... r-4th-year).

So what will defer firms from bad behavior when many will still get in line to be at the firm responsible for the phrase Latham'd or where they're likely to be treated like shit (JD)? The reality is law graduates need jobs, as the fears and desperation in this thread and most threads on the front page of this employment forum show. These firms offer jobs with 190K salaries (maybe 19.0K for JD, who knows with the Blackbox?).

I’m aware of many in my class who refused to even rank JD for EIP because of their incredibly shady reputation. Their relationship with Trump also doesn’t help when you’re talking about schools with mostly liberal populations.

Regarding Latham, I think because it’s been 10 years since the layoffs, most people currently in law school don’t even know that occurred. But I’m sure it was more front and center in people’s minds in 2010,11, and 12.

[objctnyrhnr]

Latham is notorious for slashing at least 440 employees (lawyers and staff) during the last recession, but remains a highly prestigious firm (https://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationw ... 250-staff/).

Same thing with Jones Day. Besides its firings, JD is one of the only v100 firms that uses black box compensation and JD faces constant lawsuits alleging sex, race, nationality, and pay discrimination. Yet in the same way Latham maintains its prestige, Jones Day, year after year, gets awards like best law firm brand (https://www.law360.com/articles/1256376 ... r-4th-year).

So what will defer firms from bad behavior when many will still get in line to be at the firm responsible for the phrase Latham'd or where they're likely to be treated like shit (JD)? The reality is law graduates need jobs, as the fears and desperation in this thread and most threads on the front page of this employment forum show. These firms offer jobs with 190K salaries (maybe 19.0K for JD, who knows with the Blackbox?).

So these are definitely all very good points. I suppose firm rep and ranking really affects two groups: students and clients. It goes without saying that most students would go to a firm with a bad rep long before they’d go to a firm that lies a giant tier below, so the rep with students etc wasn’t really what I was referring to.

Although I take your counterpoints, I nevertheless think it’s quite unlikely that all the bad JD press re women, parents, etc. had no impact their reps with existing or potential clients. It’d be tough to say for sure, but I’d be shocked if it didn’t.

And I get your point about best firm brand but I would speculate that Latham and Jd were so strong to begin with that they didn’t take too much of a hit. Firms with less of a top level brand name, ie most of them, would be less immune I would think.

So my point more specifically is that screwing a large number of associates (incoming or current) in the midst of a pandemic and potential depression would be pretty brutal for at least most firms’ reps for clients. Further, I think it’s just a different day now than it was a decade ago, or even a few years ago, and I think that people are just more in-tune with and sensitive to these types of issues.

Ultimately I just think there’s a major reason that we have only seen very few significant layoffs, but we’ve seen a ton of salary cuts. To me this has to be caused by the rep thing I was discussing.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

As I understand it, the argument is that incoming associates who get deferred until January 2021 don't have the moral standing to be disappointed, because those associates can move back home with their parents, sponge off of their SO, or find a cheap apartment in bumfuck nowhere to reduce living expenses.

In order, 1) Even assuming incoming associates who get deferred are "less screwed over" than current associates who get laid off, which isn't necessarily true, that doesn't mean incoming associates aren't being put in a bad position. "Less screwed over" isn't the same as "not screwed over".

2) Not all incoming associates have parents or significant others to sponge off of.

3) During the pandemic, when we're all supposed to be under stay-at-home orders (or at least stay-at-home guidance, in a few states without orders), it's morally irresponsible to advise folks to move. Yes, a 3L currently renting an apartment in NYC might save money by moving to South Dakota or West Virginia or whatever, but that would entail hiring movers (or, at the least, going out and renting a U-Haul), traveling to South Dakota, etc., all of which increases the risk of contracting the coronavirus or contributing to its spread (or both).

It's also pretty entitled to assume folks can simply up and move across the country on a whim. Where's the 3L gonna find the money to fund this unanticipated cross-country move (actually, two moves: one move out to West Virginia, then another move back to NYC before starting)? There's also the additional expense of traveling back to NY from West Virginia to take the bar (firms may reimburse bar-related expenses, but candidates will typically need to pay upfront and may not get reimbursed for months). If the answer is "parents or SO", again, see 2) above.

No one said it's not a hit to people. But the large majority of people at CLS/NYU had parents they could move back in with, if push really came to shove (since y'all are talking about being homeless otherwise), and even if they didn't, the cost of moving, temporarily, to somewhere cheaper for 6-7 months is still less than what it costs to normally rent in NYC (unless you've got some sweet deal).

Can't really opine on virus-related risks, other than to suggest that getting the hell out of NYC probably would be on net beneficial for *you*.

Again, don't want to minimize the hit people will take, especially if they had atypical cirucmstances. Just wanted to push back on the notion that that someone *had* to stay in NYC with no income until January. That's just not true for the large majority of incoming associates.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It should also be said that the large majority of 1Ls have no idea what actions any firm has ever taken. They're not gonna know that Jones Day hates women or that Latham fired a bunch of people. Most people do next to no research and accept OCI offers not knowing a damn thing about the firm other than their Vault ranking. Whatever firms do now will be entirely forgotten in a few years.

[2020Graduate]

Latham is notorious for slashing at least 440 employees (lawyers and staff) during the last recession, but remains a highly prestigious firm (https://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationw ... 250-staff/).

Same thing with Jones Day. Besides its firings, JD is one of the only v100 firms that uses black box compensation and JD faces constant lawsuits alleging sex, race, nationality, and pay discrimination. Yet in the same way Latham maintains its prestige, Jones Day, year after year, gets awards like best law firm brand (https://www.law360.com/articles/1256376 ... r-4th-year).

So what will defer firms from bad behavior when many will still get in line to be at the firm responsible for the phrase Latham'd or where they're likely to be treated like shit (JD)? The reality is law graduates need jobs, as the fears and desperation in this thread and most threads on the front page of this employment forum show. These firms offer jobs with 190K salaries (maybe 19.0K for JD, who knows with the Blackbox?).

So these are definitely all very good points. I suppose firm rep and ranking really affects two groups: students and clients. It goes without saying that most students would go to a firm with a bad rep long before they’d go to a firm that lies a giant tier below, so the rep with students etc wasn’t really what I was referring to.

Although I take your counterpoints, I nevertheless think it’s quite unlikely that all the bad JD press re women, parents, etc. had no impact their reps with existing or potential clients. It’d be tough to say for sure, but I’d be shocked if it didn’t.

And I get your point about best firm brand but I would speculate that Latham and Jd were so strong to begin with that they didn’t take too much of a hit. Firms with less of a top level brand name, ie most of them, would be less immune I would think.

So my point more specifically is that screwing a large number of associates (incoming or current) in the midst of a pandemic and potential depression would be pretty brutal for at least most firms’ reps for clients. Further, I think it’s just a different day now than it was a decade ago, or even a few years ago, and I think that people are just more in-tune with and sensitive to these types of issues.

Ultimately I just think there’s a major reason that we have only seen very few significant layoffs, but we’ve seen a ton of salary cuts. To me this has to be caused by the rep thing I was discussing.

Appreciate your points and hope they're right (this is a different time), and I'm encouraged by LHand1993 stating some students did not pick JD.

That said....

It should also be said that the large majority of 1Ls have no idea what actions any firm has ever taken. They're not gonna know that Jones Day hates women or that Latham fired a bunch of people. Most people do next to no research and accept OCI offers not knowing a damn thing about the firm other than their Vault ranking. Whatever firms do now will be entirely forgotten in a few years.

This point is precisely why I worry firms will get away with it. Sometimes it blows my mind people who are so oblivious get firm jobs at all.

[burritotaco]

It should also be said that the large majority of 1Ls have no idea what actions any firm has ever taken. They're not gonna know that Jones Day hates women or that Latham fired a bunch of people. Most people do next to no research and accept OCI offers not knowing a damn thing about the firm other than their Vault ranking. Whatever firms do now will be entirely forgotten in a few years.

And even if they do the research, there will always be more than enough law students with six figures of debt who don't care because they need the money and are more concerned about their career.

[nls336]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

um...maybe because they have apartments full of belongings that to move out of NYC and back into NYC will cost an extra 2-3K MINIMUM...or because their families don't have space for them, or because they have nowhere else to go?

Why does it matter whether you're confused about why people need to rent in NYC for the two months before they were scheduled to begin working? Your opinion on whether people need to live somewhere between May graduation and their September start date (don't forget many have already signed up for in-person bar classes in NYC) has no bearing on whether it is factually true that most NYC based law students perceive the need to continue to rent in what now amounts to their home city.

How callous is it to just ask people who have been living and working in a place they now consider home to uproot their lives because people on the internet don't consider it a problem for them that they may have long stretches of basically being unemployed or furloughed. "Oh, I see you've been stably living in New York City for the better part of ten years...I'm sure you won't mind desperately trying to move all of your belongings from your home to a place that isn't your home for two months at great expense to you instead of just continuing to pay your rent where you currently are so that we can furlough you and save money." Who thinks like that? I've lived in NYC now for almost a decade. I'm 25 years old. I simply do not have the time or financial resources to execute two moves DURING A PANDEMIC this summer on the condition that I *may* not be employed because of whatever reason that is no fault of my own.

We have made our plans based on what our firms said that they would provide us to live over the summer. We did a responsible thing and actually chose the option that will cost us less over time in superfluous bullshit both financially and timewise. We deserve to have our expectations honored by the companies we have arranged our lives around. Just because we aren't as important in the legal market as associates who had the good luck to graduate during a boom doesn't mean we don't deserve exactly what other associates get. This whole conversation of "how impoverished is the right level of impoverished for new grads" and "whether this burden is only bad vs. whether it's extremely severe for young people" or "why should they get what they haven't been given an opportunity to earn yet?" is why people cannot stand lawyers. Not everything is a theoretical moral problem. Some people are living in hell right now.

I've moved in and out of NYC 5 times and each time I do it I either have to call my aging parents to drive from Boston to NY to help my physically do it, or pay extreme amounts of money for moving companies to do it for me. Either way that's an extra expense that I could just avoid by maintaining my current residence...

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

um...maybe because they have apartments full of belongings that to move out of NYC and back into NYC will cost an extra 2-3K MINIMUM...or because their families don't have space for them, or because they have nowhere else to go?

Why does it matter whether you're confused about why people need to rent in NYC for the two months before they were scheduled to begin working? Your opinion on whether people need to live somewhere between May graduation and their September start date (don't forget many have already signed up for in-person bar classes in NYC) has no bearing on whether it is factually true that most NYC based law students perceive the need to continue to rent in what now amounts to their home city.

How callous is it to just ask people who have been living and working in a place they now consider home to uproot their lives because people on the internet don't consider it a problem for them that they may have long stretches of basically being unemployed or furloughed. "Oh, I see you've been stably living in New York City for the better part of ten years...I'm sure you won't mind desperately trying to move all of your belongings from your home to a place that isn't your home for two months at great expense to you instead of just continuing to pay your rent where you currently are so that we can furlough you and save money." Who thinks like that? I've lived in NYC now for almost a decade. I'm 25 years old. I simply do not have the time or financial resources to execute two moves DURING A PANDEMIC this summer on the condition that I *may* not be employed because of whatever reason that is no fault of my own.

We have made our plans based on what our firms said that they would provide us to live over the summer. We did a responsible thing and actually chose the option that will cost us less over time in superfluous bullshit both financially and timewise. We deserve to have our expectations honored by the companies we have arranged our lives around. Just because we aren't as important in the legal market as associates who had the good luck to graduate during a boom doesn't mean we don't deserve exactly what other associates get. This whole conversation of "how impoverished is the right level of impoverished for new grads" and "whether this burden is only bad vs. whether it's extremely severe for young people" or "why should they get what they haven't been given an opportunity to earn yet?" is why people cannot stand lawyers. Not everything is a theoretical moral problem. Some people are living in hell right now.

I've moved in and out of NYC 5 times and each time I do it I either have to call my aging parents to drive from Boston to NY to help my physically do it, or pay extreme amounts of money for moving companies to do it for me. Either way that's an extra expense that I could just avoid by maintaining my current residence...

The "people on the internet" have nothing to do with your problems. The problems exist whether they're discussed online or not.

If you're working in biglaw, the firm will probably take care of you. If not, then you find a way to survive.

As for moving, I've never used a moving company. I rent a U-Haul and load it with a friend. If you have no large male friends willing to help, then someone on TaskRabbit can do it for a fraction of the price of a moving company.

Tens of millions of people are living in hell right now. Please cease the whining.

[lawschoolnewbie2018]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

um...maybe because they have apartments full of belongings that to move out of NYC and back into NYC will cost an extra 2-3K MINIMUM...or because their families don't have space for them, or because they have nowhere else to go?

Why does it matter whether you're confused about why people need to rent in NYC for the two months before they were scheduled to begin working? Your opinion on whether people need to live somewhere between May graduation and their September start date (don't forget many have already signed up for in-person bar classes in NYC) has no bearing on whether it is factually true that most NYC based law students perceive the need to continue to rent in what now amounts to their home city.

How callous is it to just ask people who have been living and working in a place they now consider home to uproot their lives because people on the internet don't consider it a problem for them that they may have long stretches of basically being unemployed or furloughed. "Oh, I see you've been stably living in New York City for the better part of ten years...I'm sure you won't mind desperately trying to move all of your belongings from your home to a place that isn't your home for two months at great expense to you instead of just continuing to pay your rent where you currently are so that we can furlough you and save money." Who thinks like that? I've lived in NYC now for almost a decade. I'm 25 years old. I simply do not have the time or financial resources to execute two moves DURING A PANDEMIC this summer on the condition that I *may* not be employed because of whatever reason that is no fault of my own.

We have made our plans based on what our firms said that they would provide us to live over the summer. We did a responsible thing and actually chose the option that will cost us less over time in superfluous bullshit both financially and timewise. We deserve to have our expectations honored by the companies we have arranged our lives around. Just because we aren't as important in the legal market as associates who had the good luck to graduate during a boom doesn't mean we don't deserve exactly what other associates get. This whole conversation of "how impoverished is the right level of impoverished for new grads" and "whether this burden is only bad vs. whether it's extremely severe for young people" or "why should they get what they haven't been given an opportunity to earn yet?" is why people cannot stand lawyers. Not everything is a theoretical moral problem. Some people are living in hell right now.

I've moved in and out of NYC 5 times and each time I do it I either have to call my aging parents to drive from Boston to NY to help my physically do it, or pay extreme amounts of money for moving companies to do it for me. Either way that's an extra expense that I could just avoid by maintaining my current residence...

The "people on the internet" have nothing to do with your problems. The problems exist whether they're discussed online or not.

If you're working in biglaw, the firm will probably take care of you. If not, then you find a way to survive.

As for moving, I've never used a moving company. I rent a U-Haul and load it with a friend. If you have no large male friends willing to help, then someone on TaskRabbit can do it for a fraction of the price of a moving company.

Tens of millions of people are living in hell right now. Please cease the whining.

Imagine coming on this forum not to give advice to OP or other first years who are worried, but to just tell them to suck it up when you are not in their position. If this is whining, then what is every other post on this website? This whole forum is full of people asking for advice and perspective based on worries that are obviously “first world problems.” Why now, when these problems are even more sever during unprecedented times, do people feel the need to shit on people who are literally spending every second thinking about their future because they can’t leave the house? I just don’t understand the negativity.

[trebekismyhero]

I am not sure why people are arguing over whether incoming first years have a right to be worried or complain about this. I think there are obviously bigger concerns going on (especially for incoming first years that don't have a job lined up) but it is a scary time and I know that if I had been in this situation several years ago I'd be nervous too about an offer being rescinded and probably bitch about having waiting longer for a check to come in.

I will say that if you're at a V50 and especially at a V10, you'll probably get a decent enough stipend to be able to get by while you are deferred.

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

The "people on the internet" have nothing to do with your problems. The problems exist whether they're discussed online or not.

If you're working in biglaw, the firm will probably take care of you. If not, then you find a way to survive.

As for moving, I've never used a moving company. I rent a U-Haul and load it with a friend. If you have no large male friends willing to help, then someone on TaskRabbit can do it for a fraction of the price of a moving company.

Tens of millions of people are living in hell right now. Please cease the whining.

This is just stunning to me. How callous, how lacking in empathy, do you have to be to see people so scared about their futures, that your response is, "Cease the whining"? Either show some kindness towards others or get the hell out.

[nahumya]

This happened to me when I graduated - the firm delayed the start date to January of next year. I took an advance from the firm and went traveling for a couple of months. I'm still alive and highly recommend taking the time to charge up your batteries before your life is an endless grid of time entries.

I’m pretty sure traveling for a couple months isn’t going to be an option and I think that’s why a lot of us are bummed to see start dates get pushed. Not only do we not get paid, we don’t get the memories of a bar trip or something similar.

Hell, I don’t even need a bar trip. I’d just like to spend some time with family in various parts of the country before biglaw starts, and who knows if flying will be feasible.

Also, a lot of people need the cash. It’s one thing to want a break when you have been making money for a couple years and have a decent chunk of change saved up. Many of us have been living off of student loans for three years now and are not prepared to go four more months without cash than originally planned. A break isn’t that enjoyable if you’re concerned about paying your bills.

100% this. Not all law students can just kick it at home for three months after the bar. If I'm deferred without a stipend and if I can't find a temporary gig after the bar (which is possible, given how hiring is quickly drying up due to COVID19), homelessness is a real possibility.

In previous downturns, firms have been pretty good about providing advances to those delayed associates who request them.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Imagine coming on this forum not to give advice to OP or other first years who are worried, but to just tell them to suck it up when you are not in their position. If this is whining, then what is every other post on this website? This whole forum is full of people asking for advice and perspective based on worries that are obviously “first world problems.” Why now, when these problems are even more sever during unprecedented times, do people feel the need to shit on people who are literally spending every second thinking about their future because they can’t leave the house? I just don’t understand the negativity.

Imagine coming on this forum and abusing the anon function!

This is just stunning to me. How callous, how lacking in empathy, do you have to be to see people so scared about their futures, that your response is, "Cease the whining"? Either show some kindness towards others or get the hell out.

For someone who was stunned, it's incredible that you were still able to compose this reply. I expect you'll be stunned daily by the callous behavior of law firm partners and clients.

[LHand1993]

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the issue as it impacts incoming first years. It wasn't to compare our plight to those currently working, nor was it to minimize the seriousness of the situation beyond biglaw--people are dying right now. Everything is relative.

Many of us do not have the financial ability to weather this storm for 9 months. Many of us are worried that the same measures firms took to take care of incoming associates during deferment won't be present this time around. From those I've discussed this with, most incoming first years haven't heard anything from their firms. I know for a fact that a bunch of v10 firms haven't told their incoming classes a damn thing since this all started. We're rightly worried about how uncertain the situation is.

If you can't understand this, or you're solution is to "suck it up," you really have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

[Anonymous User]

It should also be said that the large majority of 1Ls have no idea what actions any firm has ever taken. They're not gonna know that Jones Day hates women or that Latham fired a bunch of people. Most people do next to no research and accept OCI offers not knowing a damn thing about the firm other than their Vault ranking. Whatever firms do now will be entirely forgotten in a few years.

I'm supposed to be starting at LW this fall, and I've read everything about what they did during the last recession (including, IIRC, giving incoming associates $70k to defer a year). I still chose to go there because it was the only decent corporate shop I got an offer from in my chosen market where my SO works. I'm at a T6 and would venture to say that most students at schools that place well into biglaw are aware of firm reputations. Most of those probably don't think that what a firm did 10 years ago is a great indicator of what they'd do in a different recession with different decision-makers and different financials (or they just have no other options). I'm sure firms like LW took a reputational hit for the first couple of years after they fired a bunch of people. But idk why people here seem to think (not anyone in particular, just the general TLS mindset) that current law students are clueless just because they don't make career decisions with an eye towards punishing law firms for what they did 10 years ago even though no one knows how firms would react to a recession today.

[Anonymous User]

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the issue as it impacts incoming first years. It wasn't to compare our plight to those currently working, nor was it to minimize the seriousness of the situation beyond biglaw--people are dying right now. Everything is relative.

Many of us do not have the financial ability to weather this storm for 9 months. Many of us are worried that the same measures firms took to take care of incoming associates during deferment won't be present this time around. From those I've discussed this with, most incoming first years haven't heard anything from their firms. I know for a fact that a bunch of v10 firms haven't told their incoming classes a damn thing since this all started. We're rightly worried about how uncertain the situation is.

If you can't understand this, or you're solution is to "suck it up," you really have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

This. The uncertainty is quite concerning, given the range of ways that some firms have communicated, either to their incoming summers or their incoming first years (or both). As someone who hasn't heard a single thing from their firm since February (not related to COVID-19), I have to wonder whether there is something bad about to happen.

[objctnyrhnr]

It should also be said that the large majority of 1Ls have no idea what actions any firm has ever taken. They're not gonna know that Jones Day hates women or that Latham fired a bunch of people. Most people do next to no research and accept OCI offers not knowing a damn thing about the firm other than their Vault ranking. Whatever firms do now will be entirely forgotten in a few years.

I'm supposed to be starting at LW this fall, and I've read everything about what they did during the last recession (including, IIRC, giving incoming associates $70k to defer a year). I still chose to go there because it was the only decent corporate shop I got an offer from in my chosen market where my SO works. I'm at a T6 and would venture to say that most students at schools that place well into biglaw are aware of firm reputations. Most of those probably don't think that what a firm did 10 years ago is a great indicator of what they'd do in a different recession with different decision-makers and different financials (or they just have no other options). I'm sure firms like LW took a reputational hit for the first couple of years after they fired a bunch of people. But idk why people here seem to think (not anyone in particular, just the general TLS mindset) that current law students are clueless just because they don't make career decisions with an eye towards punishing law firms for what they did 10 years ago even though no one knows how firms would react to a recession today.

Agree with all of this. That’s why I was thinking that, to the extent there’s a PR hit to worry about, it’ll be one that comes from the current and/or potential clients.

[lawlorbust]

Imagine coming on this forum not to give advice to OP or other first years who are worried, but to just tell them to suck it up when you are not in their position. If this is whining, then what is every other post on this website? This whole forum is full of people asking for advice and perspective based on worries that are obviously “first world problems.” Why now, when these problems are even more sever during unprecedented times, do people feel the need to shit on people who are literally spending every second thinking about their future because they can’t leave the house? I just don’t understand the negativity.

Imagine coming on this forum and abusing the anon function!

This is just stunning to me. How callous, how lacking in empathy, do you have to be to see people so scared about their futures, that your response is, "Cease the whining"? Either show some kindness towards others or get the hell out.

For someone who was stunned, it's incredible that you were still able to compose this reply. I expect you'll be stunned daily by the callous behavior of law firm partners and clients.

Blah blah blah blah

Dude you are absolute garbage. Just take the L already

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Imagine coming on this forum not to give advice to OP or other first years who are worried, but to just tell them to suck it up when you are not in their position. If this is whining, then what is every other post on this website? This whole forum is full of people asking for advice and perspective based on worries that are obviously “first world problems.” Why now, when these problems are even more sever during unprecedented times, do people feel the need to shit on people who are literally spending every second thinking about their future because they can’t leave the house? I just don’t understand the negativity.

Imagine coming on this forum and abusing the anon function!

This is just stunning to me. How callous, how lacking in empathy, do you have to be to see people so scared about their futures, that your response is, "Cease the whining"? Either show some kindness towards others or get the hell out.

For someone who was stunned, it's incredible that you were still able to compose this reply. I expect you'll be stunned daily by the callous behavior of law firm partners and clients.

Blah blah blah blah

Dude you are absolute garbage. Just take the L already

Best of luck in the future!

[Anonymous User]

Orrick has not told incoming associates anything about additional stipends.

Edit: incoming* associates

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

The large majority of people who just graduated law school do not need to rent in the NYC area before their start date (unless they have a working partner or for whatever reason they're on a longer lease).

Anyone at NYU or Columbia (which is a not-insignificant portion of any v100 incoming class at an NYC office) does. And NYC is the most extreme example. Rent anywhere is going to be tough when you're living off $20k for 9 months. Sure, plenty of people can fall back and live with parents or relatives, or have a partner that's still working. But plenty of people can't/don't.

That's not even getting into people who are looking to move to the city where their firm is located--the rental market is basically frozen for the time being, giving everyone much less time to secure housing once they are able to do so.

I'm still confused why people who went (past tense) to Columbia/NYU or who will eventually start at NY firms need to pay rent to live in NYC before their start date.

um...maybe because they have apartments full of belongings that to move out of NYC and back into NYC will cost an extra 2-3K MINIMUM...or because their families don't have space for them, or because they have nowhere else to go?

Why does it matter whether you're confused about why people need to rent in NYC for the two months before they were scheduled to begin working? Your opinion on whether people need to live somewhere between May graduation and their September start date (don't forget many have already signed up for in-person bar classes in NYC) has no bearing on whether it is factually true that most NYC based law students perceive the need to continue to rent in what now amounts to their home city.

How callous is it to just ask people who have been living and working in a place they now consider home to uproot their lives because people on the internet don't consider it a problem for them that they may have long stretches of basically being unemployed or furloughed. "Oh, I see you've been stably living in New York City for the better part of ten years...I'm sure you won't mind desperately trying to move all of your belongings from your home to a place that isn't your home for two months at great expense to you instead of just continuing to pay your rent where you currently are so that we can furlough you and save money." Who thinks like that? I've lived in NYC now for almost a decade. I'm 25 years old. I simply do not have the time or financial resources to execute two moves DURING A PANDEMIC this summer on the condition that I *may* not be employed because of whatever reason that is no fault of my own.

We have made our plans based on what our firms said that they would provide us to live over the summer. We did a responsible thing and actually chose the option that will cost us less over time in superfluous bullshit both financially and timewise. We deserve to have our expectations honored by the companies we have arranged our lives around. Just because we aren't as important in the legal market as associates who had the good luck to graduate during a boom doesn't mean we don't deserve exactly what other associates get. This whole conversation of "how impoverished is the right level of impoverished for new grads" and "whether this burden is only bad vs. whether it's extremely severe for young people" or "why should they get what they haven't been given an opportunity to earn yet?" is why people cannot stand lawyers. Not everything is a theoretical moral problem. Some people are living in hell right now.

I've moved in and out of NYC 5 times and each time I do it I either have to call my aging parents to drive from Boston to NY to help my physically do it, or pay extreme amounts of money for moving companies to do it for me. Either way that's an extra expense that I could just avoid by maintaining my current residence...

The "people on the internet" have nothing to do with your problems. The problems exist whether they're discussed online or not.

If you're working in biglaw, the firm will probably take care of you. If not, then you find a way to survive.

As for moving, I've never used a moving company. I rent a U-Haul and load it with a friend. If you have no large male friends willing to help, then someone on TaskRabbit can do it for a fraction of the price of a moving company.

Tens of millions of people are living in hell right now. Please cease the whining.

Imagine coming on this forum not to give advice to OP or other first years who are worried, but to just tell them to suck it up when you are not in their position. If this is whining, then what is every other post on this website? This whole forum is full of people asking for advice and perspective based on worries that are obviously “first world problems.” Why now, when these problems are even more sever during unprecedented times, do people feel the need to shit on people who are literally spending every second thinking about their future because they can’t leave the house? I just don’t understand the negativity.

The advice *has* been posted. It's not to pay one more dime of NYC rent until your start date if you don't have the money to make it that far. Yeah, it's gonna cost piles to move somewhere else and it's gonna be a massive pain in the ass. But for most people who got deferred until January, it would save them money. Whether it's worth the hassle is up to you; I wouldn't have bothered bringing it up if some dude hadn't said he was gonna be homeless otherwise.

That's just practical advice. Whoever thinks it's callous and insensitive to suggest that is in for a rude goddamn awakening to how Biglaw will treat you, especially in a downturn. TLS was made for venting, but they're not any more likely to help you if you call them cheap bastards here instead of taking every step necessary to cover your own ass. Some people got some assistance from their firms last time around; some people were laid/deferred into oblivion with six-figure debt and never made anything close to Biglaw money again.

[QContinuum]

The advice *has* been posted. It's not to pay one more dime of NYC rent until your start date if you don't have the money to make it that far. Yeah, it's gonna cost piles to move somewhere else and it's gonna be a massive pain in the ass. But for most people who got deferred until January, it would save them money. Whether it's worth the hassle is up to you; I wouldn't have bothered bringing it up if some dude hadn't said he was gonna be homeless otherwise.

So your position is that someone at risk of homelessness has the "piles" of money required to move out of the city? Have you considered that they're at risk of homelessness precisely because they don't have a pile of savings sitting around?

That's just practical advice. Whoever thinks it's callous and insensitive to suggest that is in for a rude goddamn awakening to how Biglaw will treat you, especially in a downturn.

No one said the practical (though fatally flawed - see above) advice was "callous and insensitive". Folks are all ears for solutions. Rather, it's the "shaddup, quit whining, you have NOTHING to complain about, in fact you're so LUCKY to have your start date bumped to 2021 because now you have more vacay time!" attitude that comes across as really entitled and tone-deaf. The assumption underlying that attitude is that all future BigLawyers come from upper-middle-class families and have no significant financial concerns - thus, a few extra months of post-bar vacation? All for the better! But that's a very entitled and completely incorrect assumption. Many future BigLawyers in the class of 2020 in fact come from poor or lower-middle-class families, or are cut off from family support for other reasons, such as abuse or homophobia. To tell people who're at risk of homelessness "you're LUCKY to have extra vacay time!" is breathtakingly callous.

Believe it or not, most BigLaw partners aren't anywhere near that inhumane.

[Wild Card]

Whoever thinks it's callous and insensitive to suggest that is in for a rude goddamn awakening to how Biglaw will treat you, especially in a downturn. . . . Some people got some assistance from their firms last time around; some people were laid/deferred into oblivion with six-figure debt and never made anything close to Biglaw money again.

This is fair.

To put things in perspective, only 2 percent of law school students at the top 20 law schools come from families in the bottom socioeconomic quarter. 79 percent of New York City residents make less than $60,000 per year.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... aw_schools
https://nypost.com/2018/12/22/the-exodu ... dle-class/

--

I think the deferral of associates is a non-issue for now, because firms in economic trouble have already been pushing start dates to November or December. Another month or two shouldn't make a difference, provided that firms are still giving new associates $15,000 or $20,000 salary advances. That is the issue, and we can't speculate yet as to whether firms still will do that.

Meanwhile, there are firms in healthier condition, such as Kirkland--Kirkland has been letting new associates work during 3L, and it's been having them start as early as September.

In short, in the past three or so years, most (?) new associates have already been forced to deal with deferrals of sorts.