Never Forget: Latham laid off hundreds in 2009 Forum

[Frogger293]

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%.

I know a lot of people bidding Latham as a safety. Bidding does not equal wants to work there. As you can see, only about a third of callback offers were accepted, and a measley 1 CLSer out of 5 actually went to Latham.

Your Latham summer class will be full of people without options. That's fine, Latham is better than nothing, but people are right to choose more stable firms over Latham.

[Frogger293]

It's not like we don't sympathize, friend. It's just that we understand REALITY. Firms have to make business decisions. I wish law were different. I wish that law firms wouldn't kick my ass to the curb so that profits per partner can stay high. But that's the post-American Lawyer world we live in. And no amount of sympathy for our fallen Lathamed brethren or hyperbolic scorn for Latham is going to change a damn thing.

This is pseudo-intellectual business reasoning. Layoffs often increase profits in the short run, but at the expense of long term profitability. This is because layoffs demoralize the workforce, people leave, and now you have to pay recruiters' fees to replace them, and you have a weaker brand as an employer. Do a little research; there are tons of articles attesting to this fact.

Kimball, a well respected legal consultancy, recently advised firms to be careful with layoffs. One wrong step will tarnish a firm for a decade and the impact on recruiting down the line will cost them more than they saved. I think it is safe to say that Latham made some wrong moves with serious consequences. People already do not want to go there, and rightfully so. As I explained above, there are a number of reasons why Latham is less stable than many other firms. So even looking at whether it was a good business decision, without considering any ethical issues, I think it's safe to say, no, it was just another poor choice by Latham management.

[XxSpyKEx]

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?

Your avatar is awesome.

Also, this thread is a great idea disco_barred.

[dresden doll]

Bumping this valuable thread for all currently doing their bidding.

Another firm to add: Baker Botts.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this valuable thread for all currently doing their bidding.

Another firm to add: Baker Botts.

I'm at MVP and have a preselect with one of the top 10 layoff firms. I knew they had laid people off when I put in my bid, but didn't quite realize just how many. Not that I'm in a position to be particularly picky.

[ObviouslyMasochistic]

Bumping this valuable thread for all currently doing their bidding.

Another firm to add: Baker Botts.

Wait, what? Is this thread just a place to list firms that laid people off during the economic downturn? If so, you may as well list the majority of the V100.

If they did something more egregious than most, I'd be interested to hear it.

[dresden doll]

Bumping this valuable thread for all currently doing their bidding.

Another firm to add: Baker Botts.

Wait, what? Is this thread just a place to list firms that laid people off during the economic downturn? If so, you may as well list the majority of the V100.

If they did something more egregious than most, I'd be interested to hear it.

It's not about egregiousness. I'm just mentioning a firm that interviewed a decent number of people at CCN and extended no offers.

I have no axe to grind with any of the firms. I just prefer to avoid firms that have the history of hiring no one from OCI as well as those that no offer a significant percentage of their SA class. The reasons for the sentiment are hopefully obvious.

[Anonymous User]

In case anyone is interviewing with Latham soon:

Latham's Silicon Valley, LA, SF, and DC offices all have 100% offer rates this summer, according to friends at two of said offices.

Don't know about any other of the firm's offices, but thought that might help.

[dresden doll]

In case anyone is interviewing with Latham soon:

Latham's Silicon Valley, LA, SF, and DC offices all have 100% offer rates this summer, according to friends at two of said offices.

Don't know about any other of the firm's offices, but thought that might help.

Interesting. Perhaps they're trying to shake off the reputation they in particular garnered with layoffs.

[TheBigMediocre]

In case anyone is interviewing with Latham soon:

Latham's Silicon Valley, LA, SF, and DC offices all have 100% offer rates this summer, according to friends at two of said offices.

Don't know about any other of the firm's offices, but thought that might help.

Latham doesn't get the pleasure of giving first-year associates the axe and ruining their careers unless they extend offers first.

[NYAssociate]

.

[270910]

Wow... I just came across this ATL article from that era. I never really thought about how brutal the logistics of a decision like that must have been. It's a really sobering read:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwi ... ng-for-it/

Last Wednesday, managing partner Bob Dell gave his State of the Firm address via videoconference. Dell went over the firm’s great financial success for 2007 (firm revenue went up a whopping 23%, far exceeding all other major firms).

He also addressed the challenges ahead for 2008. He specifically addressed the issue of layoffs. He said multiple times that he believed it would be a bad business decision to lay off associates. Latham made that mistake in 1990 and Dell said the layoffs hurt their profitability after the recession was over. Dell said “there will be no layoffs” and that it was not even on the table for discussion.

[bk1]

Read my lips, no new taxes, eh?

[romothesavior]

Wow... I just came across this ATL article from that era. I never really thought about how brutal the logistics of a decision like that must have been. It's a really sobering read:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwi ... ng-for-it/

Last Wednesday, managing partner Bob Dell gave his State of the Firm address via videoconference. Dell went over the firm’s great financial success for 2007 (firm revenue went up a whopping 23%, far exceeding all other major firms).

He also addressed the challenges ahead for 2008. He specifically addressed the issue of layoffs. He said multiple times that he believed it would be a bad business decision to lay off associates. Latham made that mistake in 1990 and Dell said the layoffs hurt their profitability after the recession was over. Dell said “there will be no layoffs” and that it was not even on the table for discussion.

That is truly messed up.

[Anonymous User]

I am refusing to interview with any big law firms that had significant attorney layoffs.

[HAMBONE]

I am refusing to interview with any big law firms that had significant attorney layoffs.

terrible idea IMO

[dresden doll]

I am refusing to interview with any big law firms that had significant attorney layoffs.

terrible idea IMO

Agreed. There aren't enough healthy firms to fill the bidlist with anyhow, and having a job beats all other options, even if it is with a firm prone to layoffs. At least laid off associates - assuming it's not first year of course - garner some experience they can try to market to other prospective employers. Never getting hired in the first place strikes me as a death sentence for biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

I am refusing to interview with any big law firms that had significant attorney layoffs.

terrible idea IMO

Disagree. My situation might be different is because I have an offer to return to the firm at which I worked 1L summer.

I don't think it would have been different even if I hadn't.

The economy tanked. The economy will recover. The economy will likely tank again in my lifetime. It could be sooner. It could be later. I don't want to have to keep watching over my shoulder for the economy to tank because my firm laid off a shit-ton of people the last time it happened.

I'd take a non-V100 firm with no layoffs paying $145k over Latham without hesitation.

Also keep in mind there are non-vault firms (people seem to think biglaw = vault, although the two aren't synonymous) that pay market in secondary markets that didn't do layoffs.

[HAMBONE]

I am refusing to interview with any big law firms that had significant attorney layoffs.

terrible idea IMO

Disagree. My situation might be different is because I have an offer to return to the firm at which I worked 1L summer.

I don't think it would have been different even if I hadn't.

The economy tanked. The economy will recover. The economy will likely tank again in my lifetime. It could be sooner. It could be later. I don't want to have to keep watching over my shoulder for the economy to tank because my firm laid off a shit-ton of people the last time it happened.

I'd take a non-V100 firm with no layoffs paying $145k over Latham without hesitation.

Also keep in mind there are non-vault firms (people seem to think biglaw = vault, although the two aren't synonymous) that pay market in secondary markets that didn't do layoffs.

I suppose I should have expanded on my reasoning. Dresden's post is certainly credited. Another issue is that many of the firms that had the most layoffs also are the ones with the largest summer classes. I think firms that did not have any layoffs also tended to have smaller classes (I could be way off base here) which means much more competition for those positions.

The bolded is certainly credited but 1) people might not have that option 2) People are more attracted to the prestige/more intellectually challenging work etc. and 3) even 2-3 years at Latham will give you better exit options than at a non-vault firms in secondary markets (again I could be way off)

Looks like you have great options and avoiding these firms might be the right choice for you but might not be the smartest choice for a lot of other people

[Anonymous User]

I am refusing to interview with any big law firms that had significant attorney layoffs.

terrible idea IMO

Disagree. My situation might be different is because I have an offer to return to the firm at which I worked 1L summer.

I don't think it would have been different even if I hadn't.

The economy tanked. The economy will recover. The economy will likely tank again in my lifetime. It could be sooner. It could be later. I don't want to have to keep watching over my shoulder for the economy to tank because my firm laid off a shit-ton of people the last time it happened.

I'd take a non-V100 firm with no layoffs paying $145k over Latham without hesitation.

Also keep in mind there are non-vault firms (people seem to think biglaw = vault, although the two aren't synonymous) that pay market in secondary markets that didn't do layoffs.

The bolded is certainly credited but 1) people might not have that option 2) People are more attracted to the prestige/more intellectually challenging work etc. and 3) even 2-3 years at Latham will give you better exit options than at a non-vault firms in secondary markets (again I could be way off)

I don't think 2-3 years at Latham necessarily gives you better exit options than at a non-vault firm. To use an extreme example, Susman Godfrey would give you just as good as -- if not better -- exit opportunities.

I think it completely depends on someone's career path and goals. There are plenty of fantastic firms out there that pay at or above market that aren't on vault, but would provide great exit opportunities on par with many of the vault firms.

It's not an objectively bad idea to eschew vault firms for non-vault firms that have better job security.

Of course, if someone really wants the "business card" effect, this isn't an option.

[270910]

I don't think 2-3 years at Latham necessarily gives you better exit options than at a non-vault firm. To use an extreme example, Susman Godfrey would give you just as good as -- if not better -- exit opportunities.

I often have pity for those who fail to get V20s and have to settle for TTT firms like SuTTTsman GodfreTTTy.

100% bonus? Fuck that noise. I just want a nice smooth layoff and some severance!

[HAMBONE]

I don't think 2-3 years at Latham necessarily gives you better exit options than at a non-vault firm. To use an extreme example, Susman Godfrey would give you just as good as -- if not better -- exit opportunities.

I often have pity for those who fail to get V20s and have to settle for TTT firms like SuTTTsman GodfreTTTy.

100% bonus? Fuck that noise. I just want a nice smooth layoff and some severance!

exactly. when i think about non-vault firms i didn't mean places like Susman Godfrey or any number of elite lit/appellate boutiques which are extremely prestigious. These places are often much harder to get than a Latham due to their very tiny summer classes and they can afford to be extremely selective. It would be a terrible idea for someone to focus on Susman Godfrey and not bid on Latham because Latham had layoffs. If you get offers at both then obviously Susman could be the better choice. I was talking about firms like Lewis Fingerisch Rice in St. Louis, a firm that pays market (~ 110k in St Louis) but is unlikely to open doors to places where Latham would.

A lot of these elite places that pay at or above market and provide exit opportunities comparable to Latham etc are just as, if not more, competitive. Some do not even hire summer associates except for the summer between the end of LS and beginning of your CoA clerkship.

I do agree that Vault rankings are generally a poor guide for determining prestige/quality of work available/firm culture/exit opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think 2-3 years at Latham necessarily gives you better exit options than at a non-vault firm. To use an extreme example, Susman Godfrey would give you just as good as -- if not better -- exit opportunities.

I often have pity for those who fail to get V20s and have to settle for TTT firms like SuTTTsman GodfreTTTy.

100% bonus? Fuck that noise. I just want a nice smooth layoff and some severance!

exactly. when i think about non-vault firms i didn't mean places like Susman Godfrey or any number of elite lit/appellate boutiques which are extremely prestigious. These places are often much harder to get than a Latham due to their very tiny summer classes and they can afford to be extremely selective. It would be a terrible idea for someone to focus on Susman Godfrey and not bid on Latham because Latham had layoffs. If you get offers at both then obviously Susman could be the better choice. I was talking about firms like Lewis Fingerisch Rice in St. Louis, a firm that pays market (~ 110k in St Louis) but is unlikely to open doors to places where Latham would.

A lot of these elite places that pay at or above market and provide exit opportunities comparable to Latham etc are just as, if not more, competitive. Some do not even hire summer associates except for the summer between the end of LS and beginning of your CoA clerkship.

I do agree that Vault rankings are generally a poor guide for determining prestige/quality of work available/firm culture/exit opportunities.

There are quite a few NYC-market-pay firms not in NYC that didn't do layoffs and aren't as selective as, say, Susman. It might take more creative networking to get the jobs, but they're out there.

Not to mention the vault firms that pay above market and didn't do layoffs (Boies, Kasowitz, Gibson to name 3).

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

Boies, Kasowitz, Gibson to name 3

Since when did Kasowitz and Gibson pay above market?

They don't. Should have been a "vault firms that pay at or above market and didn't do layoffs."