Top Law Schools

--LinkRemoved--

Jones Day fired an unspecified number of staff. Before this I know I read on ATL Deferred members of the class of 2009 were told their services were no longer need. It appears law firms are starting to deal with the fact that many associates of the class of 2009 that were deferred are planning on starting soon, along with members of the class of 2010 that got offers, combined with the fact demand for legal services doesn’t seem to have picked up would lead me to believe OCI this year is going to be a crushing disappointment. But I really hope I am wrong.

As much as it sucks to be deferred and then dropped, it's a damn sight better than getting fired as a first/second year associate for trumped up performance reasons (in a transparent but still damaging attempt to conceal now obviously profligate earlier overstaffing and now the resulting panicked downsizing.) Which ATL has been chronicling for some time now. Apparently, the hits are going to keep on coming for a while yet.

Sympathies to anyone caught up in this (in an immediate sense.)

edit: n/m

lovelaw27 wrote:But I really hope I am wrong. Everyone enjoy OCI this year.

I really think you're a great guy. But you're a dick.

thesealocust wrote:

lovelaw27 wrote:http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/staff-la ... more-22248

Jones Day fired an unspecified number of staff. Before this I know I read on ATL Deferred members of the class of 2009 were told their services were no longer need. It appears law firms are starting to deal with the fact that many associates of the class of 2009 that were deferred are planning on starting soon, along with members of the class of 2010 that got offers, combined with the fact demand for legal services doesn’t seem to have picked up would lead me to believe OCI this year is going to be a crushing disappointment. But I really hope I am wrong. Everyone enjoy OCI this year.

pssssttt.... attorneys aren't staff.

HTH.

Did I say attorneys were staff?

Washington, D.C., partner Joe Sims tells the ABA Journal that about two-thirds of those laid off are secretarial workers, and the rest are other legal support staffers.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... lternative

CHECK YOU INFO.

Sounds like a lot of secretaries and paralegals got axed. Sucks for them, but doesn't say anything by itself about lawyers' job prospects.

edit: n/m

Whew, I thought real people had been fired.

KMaine wrote:

lovelaw27 wrote:But I really hope I am wrong. Everyone enjoy OCI this year.

I really think you're a great guy. But you're a dick.

Yeah, I am sorry that was inappropriate.

Well, it doesn't bode well for OCI, but I do not think it indicates at all that this year's OCI will be worse than last year's.

lovelaw27 wrote:

KMaine wrote:

lovelaw27 wrote:But I really hope I am wrong. Everyone enjoy OCI this year.

I really think you're a great guy. But you're a dick.

Yeah, I am sorry that was inappropriate.

If you're serious, no big deal, I was just trying to be funny.

KMaine wrote:Well, it doesn't bode well for OCI, but I do not think it indicates at all that this year's OCI will be worse than last year's.

it doesn't bode well for secretary OCI.

thesealocust wrote:

lovelaw27 wrote:

thesealocust wrote:

lovelaw27 wrote:http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/staff-la ... more-22248

Jones Day fired an unspecified number of staff. Before this I know I read on ATL Deferred members of the class of 2009 were told their services were no longer need. It appears law firms are starting to deal with the fact that many associates of the class of 2009 that were deferred are planning on starting soon, along with members of the class of 2010 that got offers, combined with the fact demand for legal services doesn’t seem to have picked up would lead me to believe OCI this year is going to be a crushing disappointment. But I really hope I am wrong. Everyone enjoy OCI this year.

pssssttt.... attorneys aren't staff.

HTH.

Did I say attorneys were staff?

The firm is fucking firing secretaries and all of the sudden OCI is fucked?

No, but it does further the argument that law firms have more personnel than is needed to handle the demand of client services. I know some people on here have talked about how maybe law firms under hired at OCI in 2009, and that they would make up for it this year. The facts I have laid out would lead me to believe that is probably not true.

No, but it does further the argument that law firms have more personnel than is needed to handle the demand of client services. I know some people on here have talked about how maybe law firms under hired at OCI in 2009, and that they would make up for it this year. The facts I have laid out would lead me to believe that is probably not true.

You post data of staffer layoffs (30ish) at one firm in two offices and you extrapolate it to junior associate recruiting nationally? Really?

I'm likewise not convinced that 2010 hiring will be measurably better than 2009 (though I suspect it won't be worse) but I'm not basing that conclusion on the ~30 pinkslips that jones day issued this past week. This is such a laughable flame I can't believe you're all indulging it.

lovelaw27 wrote:
No, but it does further the argument that law firms have more personnel than is needed to handle the demand of client services. I know some people on here have talked about how maybe law firms under hired at OCI in 2009, and that they would make up for it this year. The facts I have laid out would lead me to believe that is probably not true.

The only fact you laid out is that the support staff at a law firm was cut, which you interpreted to mean that that law firm needed fewer lawyers as well. That can in no way be inferred from the given data (didn't you take the LSAT?) Then, you take that faulty interpretation and apply it to the entire legal market. The facts that you have laid out do nothing to undermine the assertion that legal hiring will pick back up.

ty try again

booyakasha wrote:

KMaine wrote:Well, it doesn't bode well for OCI, but I do not think it indicates at all that this year's OCI will be worse than last year's.

it doesn't bode well for secretary OCI.

Look out Fordham students.

miamiman wrote:

No, but it does further the argument that law firms have more personnel than is needed to handle the demand of client services. I know some people on here have talked about how maybe law firms under hired at OCI in 2009, and that they would make up for it this year. The facts I have laid out would lead me to believe that is probably not true.

You post data of staffer layoffs (30ish) at one firm in two offices and you extrapolate it to junior associate recruiting nationally? Really?

I'm likewise not convinced that 2010 hiring will be measurably better than 2009 (though I suspect it won't be worse) but I'm not basing that conclusion on the ~30 pinkslips that jones day issued this past week. This is such a laughable flame I can't believe you're all indulging it.

It appears law firms are starting to deal with the fact that many associates of the class of 2009 that were deferred are planning on starting soon, along with members of the class of 2010 that got offers, combined with the fact demand for legal services doesn’t seem to have picked up


That is why I don’t think OCI will be that strong.

Desert Fox wrote:

booyakasha wrote:

KMaine wrote:Well, it doesn't bode well for OCI, but I do not think it indicates at all that this year's OCI will be worse than last year's.

it doesn't bode well for secretary OCI.

Look out Fordham students.

noice

The only fact you laid out is that the support staff at a law firm was cut, which you interpreted to mean that that law firm needed fewer lawyers as well. That can in no way be inferred from the given data (didn't you take the LSAT?) Then, you take that faulty interpretation and apply it to the entire legal market. The facts that you have laid out do nothing to undermine the assertion that legal hiring will pick back up.

Staffer layoffs are probably decently-well correlated with attorney layoffs; much the same way as staffer hiring is correlated with attorney hiring. (Visit LawShucks if you have the time). That isn't the problem here.

The problem is that OP posts layoffs from one firm on a relatively small scale and seeks to leverage that (inadequate) body of data into some sort of macro-scale forecast for a related but wholly independent subset of individuals.

“These [layoffs] were not performance or economic driven but simply rightsizing to be more effective,” he told the ABA Journal.

Wait, "rightsizing"? That's a term? Really? I'm gonna add that to my mock business lingo.

goodolgil wrote:

“These [layoffs] were not performance or economic driven but simply rightsizing to be more effective,” he told the ABA Journal.

Wait, "rightsizing"? That's a term? Really? I'm gonna add that to my mock business lingo.

I'm going to rightsize my work day.

edit: n/m

miamiman wrote: Staffer layoffs are probably decently-well correlated with attorney layoffs; much the same way as staffer hiring is correlated with attorney hiring.

So, you're justifying speculation that asserts correlation in one form of behavior by providing evidence that totally different behavior is correlated to a result not relevant to the first behavior? In other words

A and B are correlated.
A is a behavior that shares the same class of actors as C.
B is a behavior that shares the same class of actors as D.
Therefore, C and D are correlated.
If you saw this assertion on the LSAT, you would recognize it as being illogical.


Staffer hiring and attorney hiring being correlated says absolutely nothing about staffer firing and attorney firing being correlated. If someone wants to assert that this laying off of this staff is a result of or precursor to laying off attorneys, the best evidence of that would be evidence that attorneys were laid off. There are numerous other explanations as to why support staff could be laid off without it having anything to do with attorney hiring.

Staffer hiring and attorney hiring being correlated says absolutely nothing about staffer firing and attorney firing being correlated. If someone wants to assert that this laying off of this staff is a result of or precursor to laying off attorneys, the best evidence of that would be evidence that attorneys were laid off. There are numerous other explanations as to why support staff could be laid off without it having anything to do with attorney hiring.

I think you're looking at this too narrowly. Staffers are ultimately decent proxies for overall firm activity/workload. 1) Firms generally keep tight staff-to-attorney ratios. When a firm decides it needs fewer staff, they will, as a matter of basic math, layoff some attorneys to maintain that ratio. That's why you see staff layoffs/attorney layoffs at firms move together (again, consult LawShucks) 2) When large pieces of litigation or projects dry up, so, too, does the need for support staff. That's undeniably why these individuals were fired. These same projects, however, are generally the lifeblood of junior associates so that partners and senior attorneys can work on the more pressing/complicated aspects of the project.

To some small extent, this story (in conjunction with other stories from Jones Day) might actually be a decent proxy for how the firm and certain offices are performing ITE. It's just not a good proxy for how other firms, in different markets, and with different specialties are doing.