Layoff Predictions Forum

[JusticeSquee]

Cadwalader cutting salaries.

https://www.law360.com/lifesciences/art ... r-pandemic

Cadwalader is pretty profitable, in the top 25 on a PPP basis. Do we think this could be the start of a broader movement to cut salaries? On the other hand, Cadwalader has had higher-than-market bonuses the past couple of years and that didn't move the market at all. And Cadwalader's reputation remains very poor.

Revenue per lawyer is a lot better metric than PPP for evaluating the finances of a firm. PPP is wonky because it's only equity partners in the mix, and some firms have very few equity partners (essentially only the big rainmakers). You could instantly double PPP by just de-equitizing a bunch of the less profitable partners.

In any event, Cadwalader is a lot more likely to cut salaries and conduct layoffs than Cravath, but I do think salary cuts won't be uncommon, especially as the shutdowns drag on.

I think top firms are much more likely to lower bonuses this year, and maybe cut some associates. I don't see salary cuts happening at the top tier.

[objctnyrhnr]

What happened to just cutting The associates in slowish (or maybe just not busy) practice groups who got the weakest evals? That seems better than this salary cut stuff—your best associates will run for the hills.

[JusticeSquee]

What happened to just cutting The associates in slowish (or maybe just not busy) practice groups who got the weakest evals? That seems better than this salary cut stuff—your best associates will run for the hills.

Agreed. Those with bad reviews or low hours are going to get cut in the coming months. Base compensation will stay the same, bonus compensation will either stay the same or go down a bit.

[objctnyrhnr]

What happened to just cutting The associates in slowish (or maybe just not busy) practice groups who got the weakest evals? That seems better than this salary cut stuff—your best associates will run for the hills.

Agreed. Those with bad reviews or low hours are going to get cut in the coming months. Base compensation will stay the same, bonus compensation will either stay the same or go down a bit.

But my point is that this doesn’t seem to be occurring. Instead, we’ve gotten all this news about salary cuts.

If biglaw isn’t going to be a ‘take no prisoners and the weak get cut‘ situation, what Environment will? Why do the best associates have to make way less money so that the weaker associates can delay the inevitable for another year or two? It doesn’t seem to make sense from the firm’s perspective.

Further, in a scenario where an associate got a weak eval and the associate is pushed out in a tough time, the associate should have already gotten a big jump start on finding a new gig immediately after the eval release.

What am I missing, here?

[PeanutsNJam]

What happened to just cutting The associates in slowish (or maybe just not busy) practice groups who got the weakest evals? That seems better than this salary cut stuff—your best associates will run for the hills.

Agreed. Those with bad reviews or low hours are going to get cut in the coming months. Base compensation will stay the same, bonus compensation will either stay the same or go down a bit.

But my point is that this doesn’t seem to be occurring. Instead, we’ve gotten all this news about salary cuts.

If biglaw isn’t going to be a ‘take no prisoners and the weak get cut‘ situation, what Environment will? Why do the best associates have to make way less money so that the weaker associates can delay the inevitable for another year or two? It doesn’t seem to make sense from the firm’s perspective.

Further, in a scenario where an associate got a weak eval and the associate is pushed out in a tough time, the associate should have already gotten a big jump start on finding a new gig immediately after the eval release.

What am I missing, here?

As far as I'm aware, associate with weak evals who don't deserve their salary get pushed out even in the best economy. A "layoff" is, as far as I understand it, an unwarranted firing. While an associate with consistently poor reviews is likely a poor associate, an associate with (random numbers) 5 good reviews and 2 mediocre ones isn't materially better or worse than someone with 7 good reviews; it could come down to the people they work for and the way they judge associates. Hell, it could come down to what the reviewing attorney had for lunch the day they had to review the associate's work.

Often times, senior associate mismanagement/miscommunication can result in errors through no fault of the junior, but if a senior wants to blame a junior for those errors, what can the junior do? In my experience, there certainly are senior associates that are terrible managers.

Cutting associates in slow groups is even less of a merit-based decision (and debatably not even a good business decision in the long term), since those associates bear 0% of the responsibility of their low hours.

[PMan99]

Cutting salaries makes sense if firms think there will be a strong demand rebound in a few months that will require a similar headcount to January-February. Firing 30% of your attorneys only to hire the same number back in a few months is an expensive and inefficient process.

The "best" associates won't go anywhere because 1) no one is hiring right now anyway and 2) if you're a real superstar, the future partnership prospects are worth more than you'd make up by avoiding a temporary pay cut.

[legalpotato]

What happened to just cutting The associates in slowish (or maybe just not busy) practice groups who got the weakest evals? That seems better than this salary cut stuff—your best associates will run for the hills.

Agreed. Those with bad reviews or low hours are going to get cut in the coming months. Base compensation will stay the same, bonus compensation will either stay the same or go down a bit.

But my point is that this doesn’t seem to be occurring. Instead, we’ve gotten all this news about salary cuts.

If biglaw isn’t going to be a ‘take no prisoners and the weak get cut‘ situation, what Environment will? Why do the best associates have to make way less money so that the weaker associates can delay the inevitable for another year or two? It doesn’t seem to make sense from the firm’s perspective.

Further, in a scenario where an associate got a weak eval and the associate is pushed out in a tough time, the associate should have already gotten a big jump start on finding a new gig immediately after the eval release.

What am I missing, here?

A: Human decency.

I would take a temporary pay cut over my co-workers being laid off (I'm someone w/ high hours and good class rating) -- now is not the time to be cutthroat.

[nealric]

I think top firms are much more likely to lower bonuses this year, and maybe cut some associates. I don't see salary cuts happening at the top tier.

The top tier is of course more insulated, though during the great recession there were various accusations of stealth layoffs (i.e. trumped up performance review issues as an excuse to let people go). The thing with cutting bonuses is it does nothing to conserve cash now. For firms worried about a sudden revenue shock, that's a bigger consideration.

[2013]

You guys are all missing the point. These firms are going to slash salaries AND fire associates. They try to seem all altruistic now, but some of your colleagues will vanish from your firm’s site in the coming months.

[nealric]

You guys are all missing the point. These firms are going to slash salaries AND fire associates. They try to seem all altruistic now, but some of your colleagues will vanish from your firm’s site in the coming months.

I don't think anybody really believes there will only be pay cuts. But what ends up happening will depend a lot on how long this lasts and how deep the economic fallout goes. Of course there will be firm-by-firm considerations. I think discussions above were just saying that a paycut is preferable to a layoff in many cases, if there's a choice between the two.

Pay cuts as opposed to layoffs aren't altruism. Hiring laterals is very expensive (easily into the six figures). You don't want to layoff an associate who was profitable until two weeks ago only to have to find a lateral in six months because now you need them back. A pay cut gives you a better chance of breaking even on the associate while you wait things out and assess whether the situation will improve.

[objctnyrhnr]

What happened to just cutting The associates in slowish (or maybe just not busy) practice groups who got the weakest evals? That seems better than this salary cut stuff—your best associates will run for the hills.

Agreed. Those with bad reviews or low hours are going to get cut in the coming months. Base compensation will stay the same, bonus compensation will either stay the same or go down a bit.

But my point is that this doesn’t seem to be occurring. Instead, we’ve gotten all this news about salary cuts.

If biglaw isn’t going to be a ‘take no prisoners and the weak get cut‘ situation, what Environment will? Why do the best associates have to make way less money so that the weaker associates can delay the inevitable for another year or two? It doesn’t seem to make sense from the firm’s perspective.

Further, in a scenario where an associate got a weak eval and the associate is pushed out in a tough time, the associate should have already gotten a big jump start on finding a new gig immediately after the eval release.

What am I missing, here?

A: Human decency.

I would take a temporary pay cut over my co-workers being laid off (I'm someone w/ high hours and good class rating) -- now is not the time to be cutthroat.

Nope. If Cadwalader did it, then that’s definitely not the reason.

[nealric]

MOD NOTE: Please keep this thread on the topic of layoffs. Feel free to discuss epidemiology in the off-topic areas of the forum.

[dabigchina]

At the risk of derailing this tread, I think the claim that most people will get it with near-perfect social distancing is false, but the death toll is in line with the latest projections that they are planning on releasing today, which assume near-perfect social distancing. Assuming a 2% death toll, we are looking at 600k if everybody in America gets it.

Downplaying the threat is not helpful, but neither is inflating it.

I'm probably missing something huge but I'm pretty sure 2% of USA would be 6-7MM people. That's 100 Vietnam Wars.

You're right. I dropped a 0. 300k is still more or less in line with what they are currently projecting.

Now do you understand my point?

Did you completely miss the second part of my post? There's really no need to discuss this further. 300k is plenty bad. It will get worse if we don't socially distance. There's no need to assert MILLIONS WILL DIE. We understand the stakes.

[lawdude31]

ATL reporting that Pryor Cashman has furloughed associates.

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/03/biglaw- ... work-soon/

[TMJ2017]

Cadwalader cutting salaries.

https://www.law360.com/lifesciences/art ... r-pandemic

Cadwalader is pretty profitable, in the top 25 on a PPP basis. Do we think this could be the start of a broader movement to cut salaries? On the other hand, Cadwalader has had higher-than-market bonuses the past couple of years and that didn't move the market at all. And Cadwalader's reputation remains very poor.

I saw speculation somewhere else that this could have been to take advantage of the CARE stimulus bill. Because Cadwalader has fewer than 500 US employees it can cut up to 25% of staff pay and still get the payroll tax relief.
That seems like a stretch but anything is possible right now I guess.

Cadwalader does not have fewer than 500 US employees. It has something like 350 attorneys in the US and so I'd imagine their total employee account (including non-attorneys) is at least double that.

[splitterfromhell]

Cadwalader cutting salaries.

https://www.law360.com/lifesciences/art ... r-pandemic

Cadwalader is pretty profitable, in the top 25 on a PPP basis. Do we think this could be the start of a broader movement to cut salaries? On the other hand, Cadwalader has had higher-than-market bonuses the past couple of years and that didn't move the market at all. And Cadwalader's reputation remains very poor.

I saw speculation somewhere else that this could have been to take advantage of the CARE stimulus bill. Because Cadwalader has fewer than 500 US employees it can cut up to 25% of staff pay and still get the payroll tax relief.
That seems like a stretch but anything is possible right now I guess.

Cadwalader does not have fewer than 500 US employees. It has something like 350 attorneys in the US and so I'd imagine their total employee account (including non-attorneys) is at least double that.

There’s that and the fact that nothing in the CARES Act *requires* a firm to cut salaries in order to utilize any incentive. In fact, the provisions are intended to discourage salary and wage cutting during the pandemic. It’s just that the MAXIMUM amount of wages that can be cut before a firm loses out on the tax relief is 25 percent.

Seems like someone heard the Cadwalader news just after reading the CARES Act and decided they were related.

Edit: Didn’t mean to be anonymous but don’t know how to fix it.

[QContinuum]

A: Human decency.

I would take a temporary pay cut over my co-workers being laid off (I'm someone w/ high hours and good class rating) -- now is not the time to be cutthroat.

Nope. If Cadwalader did it, then that’s definitely not the reason.

Not understanding the above. Is the claim that the salary reduction indicates Cadwalader lacks human decency, or that Cadwalader has human decency?

The top tier is of course more insulated, though during the great recession there were various accusations of stealth layoffs (i.e. trumped up performance review issues as an excuse to let people go). The thing with cutting bonuses is it does nothing to conserve cash now. For firms worried about a sudden revenue shock, that's a bigger consideration.

There were also open layoffs, most conspicuously at Latham, but at other "top-tier" firms as well.

neal is right about bonuses. I don't think any firm's even taking bonuses into consideration right now - December 2020's so far down the pike. If it was currently November 2020, sure, firms might look ahead and consider axing bonuses in lieu of conducting layoffs or implementing salary cuts. But, it's only March.

[legalpotato]

A: Human decency.

I would take a temporary pay cut over my co-workers being laid off (I'm someone w/ high hours and good class rating) -- now is not the time to be cutthroat.

Nope. If Cadwalader did it, then that’s definitely not the reason.

Not understanding the above. Is the claim that the salary reduction indicates Cadwalader lacks human decency, or that Cadwalader has human decency?

The top tier is of course more insulated, though during the great recession there were various accusations of stealth layoffs (i.e. trumped up performance review issues as an excuse to let people go). The thing with cutting bonuses is it does nothing to conserve cash now. For firms worried about a sudden revenue shock, that's a bigger consideration.

There were also open layoffs, most conspicuously at Latham, but at other "top-tier" firms as well.

neal is right about bonuses. I don't think any firm's even taking bonuses into consideration right now - December 2020's so far down the pike. If it was currently November 2020, sure, firms might look ahead and consider axing bonuses in lieu of conducting layoffs or implementing salary cuts. But, it's only March.

Was responding to his prior post where he was advocating for Associate Hunger Games and asking why the eff the good associates get their pay cut instead of just laying off the weak associates -- he asked "what am I missing here (in re how come they aren't just laying off the weak), to which I responded "Human Decency".

[objctnyrhnr]

A: Human decency.

I would take a temporary pay cut over my co-workers being laid off (I'm someone w/ high hours and good class rating) -- now is not the time to be cutthroat.

Nope. If Cadwalader did it, then that’s definitely not the reason.

Not understanding the above. Is the claim that the salary reduction indicates Cadwalader lacks human decency, or that Cadwalader has human decency?

The top tier is of course more insulated, though during the great recession there were various accusations of stealth layoffs (i.e. trumped up performance review issues as an excuse to let people go). The thing with cutting bonuses is it does nothing to conserve cash now. For firms worried about a sudden revenue shock, that's a bigger consideration.

There were also open layoffs, most conspicuously at Latham, but at other "top-tier" firms as well.

neal is right about bonuses. I don't think any firm's even taking bonuses into consideration right now - December 2020's so far down the pike. If it was currently November 2020, sure, firms might look ahead and consider axing bonuses in lieu of conducting layoffs or implementing salary cuts. But, it's only March.

Was responding to his prior post where he was advocating for Associate Hunger Games and asking why the eff the good associates get their pay cut instead of just laying off the weak associates -- he asked "what am I missing here (in re how come they aren't just laying off the weak), to which I responded "Human Decency".

First of all, calling laying off the bottom 20% of associates in a bad economic time “associate hunger games” is hyperbole to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Biglaw is an intense industry, and I don’t think I’m crazy to say that maybe if people perform worse than 80% of their peers, they shouldn’t continue to bring in 300k or whatever. Every associate knows what happened in 2010, so if they get into biglaw afterwards that’s a calculated risk they are taking.

Also, yes cadwalader is pretty widely known as like the worst biglaw form for an associate to work. There’s pretty detailed anecdotal evidence all over the Internet. That’s why I was saying that human decency probably wasn’t the motivation. More likely PR or maybe not wanting to scale down too much on the chance everything bounces back quickly.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

A: Human decency.

I would take a temporary pay cut over my co-workers being laid off (I'm someone w/ high hours and good class rating) -- now is not the time to be cutthroat.

Nope. If Cadwalader did it, then that’s definitely not the reason.

Not understanding the above. Is the claim that the salary reduction indicates Cadwalader lacks human decency, or that Cadwalader has human decency?

The top tier is of course more insulated, though during the great recession there were various accusations of stealth layoffs (i.e. trumped up performance review issues as an excuse to let people go). The thing with cutting bonuses is it does nothing to conserve cash now. For firms worried about a sudden revenue shock, that's a bigger consideration.

There were also open layoffs, most conspicuously at Latham, but at other "top-tier" firms as well.

neal is right about bonuses. I don't think any firm's even taking bonuses into consideration right now - December 2020's so far down the pike. If it was currently November 2020, sure, firms might look ahead and consider axing bonuses in lieu of conducting layoffs or implementing salary cuts. But, it's only March.

Was responding to his prior post where he was advocating for Associate Hunger Games and asking why the eff the good associates get their pay cut instead of just laying off the weak associates -- he asked "what am I missing here (in re how come they aren't just laying off the weak), to which I responded "Human Decency".

First of all, calling laying off the bottom 20% of associates in a bad economic time “associate hunger games” is hyperbole to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Biglaw is an intense industry, and I don’t think I’m crazy to say that maybe if people perform worse than 80% of their peers, they shouldn’t continue to bring in 300k or whatever. Every associate knows what happened in 2010, so if they get into biglaw afterwards that’s a calculated risk they are taking.

Also, yes cadwalader is pretty widely known as like the worst biglaw form for an associate to work. There’s pretty detailed anecdotal evidence all over the Internet. That’s why I was saying that human decency probably wasn’t the motivation. More likely PR or maybe not wanting to scale down too much on the chance everything bounces back quickly.

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

[objctnyrhnr]

A: Human decency.

I would take a temporary pay cut over my co-workers being laid off (I'm someone w/ high hours and good class rating) -- now is not the time to be cutthroat.

Nope. If Cadwalader did it, then that’s definitely not the reason.

Not understanding the above. Is the claim that the salary reduction indicates Cadwalader lacks human decency, or that Cadwalader has human decency?

The top tier is of course more insulated, though during the great recession there were various accusations of stealth layoffs (i.e. trumped up performance review issues as an excuse to let people go). The thing with cutting bonuses is it does nothing to conserve cash now. For firms worried about a sudden revenue shock, that's a bigger consideration.

There were also open layoffs, most conspicuously at Latham, but at other "top-tier" firms as well.

neal is right about bonuses. I don't think any firm's even taking bonuses into consideration right now - December 2020's so far down the pike. If it was currently November 2020, sure, firms might look ahead and consider axing bonuses in lieu of conducting layoffs or implementing salary cuts. But, it's only March.

Was responding to his prior post where he was advocating for Associate Hunger Games and asking why the eff the good associates get their pay cut instead of just laying off the weak associates -- he asked "what am I missing here (in re how come they aren't just laying off the weak), to which I responded "Human Decency".

First of all, calling laying off the bottom 20% of associates in a bad economic time “associate hunger games” is hyperbole to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Biglaw is an intense industry, and I don’t think I’m crazy to say that maybe if people perform worse than 80% of their peers, they shouldn’t continue to bring in 300k or whatever. Every associate knows what happened in 2010, so if they get into biglaw afterwards that’s a calculated risk they are taking.

Also, yes cadwalader is pretty widely known as like the worst biglaw form for an associate to work. There’s pretty detailed anecdotal evidence all over the Internet. That’s why I was saying that human decency probably wasn’t the motivation. More likely PR or maybe not wanting to scale down too much on the chance everything bounces back quickly.

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

You’re right, genius. The ones who get laid off in lit are JUST AS LIKELY to bill 2400 Year in and out and write winning dispositive brief after winning dispositive brief, as they are to bill 1600 hours and get stuck doing doc review every other assignment because partners don’t trust them with anything complex. Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

With the obvious caveats that you could get stuck in a group with no work (out of your control), have a partner-related issue (assume out of your control for the sake of argument), an unfair sex/race bias type issue, or some other bad luck related problems, yeah. That’s how it works in the vast majority of case. Think about it.

They don’t pick names out of a hat when it all hits the fan. If you have a suddenly slow group and you decide, for the sake of the firm, you need to lay off one of two 3rd years, how will you decide which one to lay off? Isn’t it at least possible it’ll have to do with merit/reputation/hours? I mean what else could it be?

Evals aren’t a perfect system, of course. but the reason they do they is to provide cover for layoffs. That’s at least part of the reason why (at least at my v20) there are a billion witnesses to the eval meetings and they’re very formalized and detailed.

[Lurk2020]

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

You’re right, genius. The ones who get laid off in lit are JUST AS LIKELY to bill 2400 Year in and out and write winning dispositive brief after winning dispositive brief, as they are to bill 1600 hours and get stuck doing doc review every other assignment because partners don’t trust them with anything complex. Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

Interesting that you work at a firm with an inverse bell curve where associates only work either 1600 hours doing doc review or 2400 hours writing gold star briefs.

For all the other firms with a slightly different distribution and the random chance factors that you do acknowledge can play a role, I’m with LaLeLuLiLo, especially during an economic downturn.

[objctnyrhnr]

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

You’re right, genius. The ones who get laid off in lit are JUST AS LIKELY to bill 2400 Year in and out and write winning dispositive brief after winning dispositive brief, as they are to bill 1600 hours and get stuck doing doc review every other assignment because partners don’t trust them with anything complex. Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

Interesting that you work at a firm with an inverse bell curve where associates only work either 1600 hours doing doc review or 2400 hours writing gold star briefs.

For all the other firms with a slightly different distribution and the random chance factors that you do acknowledge can play a role, I’m with LaLeLuLiLo, especially during an economic downturn.

Nah I didn’t say that was my firm. That said, My firm stealth pushes junior ish associates who just aren’t on the level of their peers. Partners don’t go back to them with work and their hours suffer. I’ve worked with some and they were okay, but just not nearly as good as a number of others.

The reality is that there are high performers, mid performers, and low performers—in law, and any other profession. Not everybody’s the same, even if they get paid close to the same 90% of the calendar years.

Why wouldn’t a firm that unfortunately must do layoffs due to circumstances go (in the aggregate of course, notwithstanding bad luck anomalies) for the lowest tier first and the highest tier last, in deciding who to cut? I mean how does doing anything else make any sense?

Im just baffled that there’s a difference of opinion on this.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

You’re right, genius. The ones who get laid off in lit are JUST AS LIKELY to bill 2400 Year in and out and write winning dispositive brief after winning dispositive brief, as they are to bill 1600 hours and get stuck doing doc review every other assignment because partners don’t trust them with anything complex. Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

Interesting that you work at a firm with an inverse bell curve where associates only work either 1600 hours doing doc review or 2400 hours writing gold star briefs.

For all the other firms with a slightly different distribution and the random chance factors that you do acknowledge can play a role, I’m with LaLeLuLiLo, especially during an economic downturn.

Nah I didn’t say that was my firm. That said, My firm stealth pushes junior ish associates who just aren’t on the level of their peers. Partners don’t go back to them with work and their hours suffer. I’ve worked with some and they were okay, but just not nearly as good as a number of others.

The reality is that there are high performers, mid performers, and low performers—in law, and any other profession. Not everybody’s the same, even if they get paid close to the same 90% of the calendar years.

Why wouldn’t a firm that unfortunately must do layoffs due to circumstances go (in the aggregate of course, notwithstanding bad luck anomalies) for the lowest tier first and the highest tier last, in deciding who to cut? I mean how does doing anything else make any sense?

Im just baffled that there’s a difference of opinion on this.

Because there is no objective metric. Low hours doesn’t mean someone is bad, mid hours doesnt mean they’re middling and high hours doesn’t mean they’re good.

Especially later in your career, you’re more likely to get most of your work from just a few partners.

There are a ton of partner politics you’re ignoring as well.

Say Associate A averages 1800 hours and Associate B averages 2000. They both get good reviews. But Associate A primarily works with one partner and that partner is an absolute bulldog and goes to bat for their people. Associate B gets work from a broader base of partners and is well liked, but isn’t all that close with any partners.

Associate B is more likely to get fired. They aren’t a “poor performer” compared to Associate A at all.

I’ve seen plenty of good attorneys pushed out and plenty of bad ones stay. These aren’t fringe cases - this is the reality of working at a firm. There is no objective metric that lets a firm go down a list and choose people to be fired.

[Newbie2TLS]

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

You’re right, genius. The ones who get laid off in lit are JUST AS LIKELY to bill 2400 Year in and out and write winning dispositive brief after winning dispositive brief, as they are to bill 1600 hours and get stuck doing doc review every other assignment because partners don’t trust them with anything complex. Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

Interesting that you work at a firm with an inverse bell curve where associates only work either 1600 hours doing doc review or 2400 hours writing gold star briefs.

For all the other firms with a slightly different distribution and the random chance factors that you do acknowledge can play a role, I’m with LaLeLuLiLo, especially during an economic downturn.

Nah I didn’t say that was my firm. That said, My firm stealth pushes junior ish associates who just aren’t on the level of their peers. Partners don’t go back to them with work and their hours suffer. I’ve worked with some and they were okay, but just not nearly as good as a number of others.

The reality is that there are high performers, mid performers, and low performers—in law, and any other profession. Not everybody’s the same, even if they get paid close to the same 90% of the calendar years.

Why wouldn’t a firm that unfortunately must do layoffs due to circumstances go (in the aggregate of course, notwithstanding bad luck anomalies) for the lowest tier first and the highest tier last, in deciding who to cut? I mean how does doing anything else make any sense?

Im just baffled that there’s a difference of opinion on this.

Because there is no objective metric. Low hours doesn’t mean someone is bad, mid hours doesnt mean they’re middling and high hours doesn’t mean they’re good.

Especially later in your career, you’re more likely to get most of your work from just a few partners.

There are a ton of partner politics you’re ignoring as well.

Say Associate A averages 1800 hours and Associate B averages 2000. They both get good reviews. But Associate A primarily works with one partner and that partner is an absolute bulldog and goes to bat for their people. Associate B gets work from a broader base of partners and is well liked, but isn’t all that close with any partners.

Associate B is more likely to get fired. They aren’t a “poor performer” compared to Associate A at all.

I’ve seen plenty of good attorneys pushed out and plenty of bad ones stay. These aren’t fringe cases - this is the reality of working at a firm. There is no objective metric that lets a firm go down a list and choose people to be fired.

I agree 100%. User above thinking there’s a clear way to cut the “low performers” seems like they’re a junior associate just getting hang of the game.

There are so many ways to cut the cake. First, if someone bills a lot but working with them feels like slamming your head against a bed of nails, while working with someone else is more comfortable despite their lower bill numbers, I’d go for the more comfortable option. Second, I can’t tell you how many associates I’ve worked with that bill 2300+ but do it because they’re inefficient and/or they get boring, easy work like doc review. I rather take someone who is efficient and reliable but bills 2100 hours than someone inefficient and less reliable (worries me when I assign more than doc review) billing 2250 Or even 2300. Third, you gotta play your group’s strengths. If you’re a litigation and counseling group, maybe litigation is a bit slow right now and so you’re relying more on counseling. But you know your bread and butter work is litigation. If the one or two associates in your group who are rockstars in litigation happen to slow down a bit during this time whereas the associates that avoid litigation and love counseling get a boost in hours, no reasonable manager would cut the litigators.

There are just too many factors you can point to here to say this person is a “low performer” and the other is a “high performer.”