Never Forget: Latham laid off hundreds in 2009 Forum

[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."

Though, for the record, both Boies and Gibson have laid off people. It might be under the radar, but it has happened.


I can basically count on one hand the firms that definitely haven't laid off people. ATL doesn't have all the info.

Attorneys or staff?

I'm sure under the radar layoffs have occurred at some places, but I don't believe it's a significant number at any one firm, simply because any significant number of layoffs would have ended up reported (even if its just an anonymous tip to ATL).

[NYAssociate]

.

[rynabrius]

NT

[HAMBONE]

I think you (whoever the anonymous user is) are missing my point. If you have the choice between offers from Latham and a market paying firm that didn't have layoffs you are maybe smart to decline Latham. However, to not even apply to a Latham because they laid off people is a terrible idea imo because you drastically reduce your odds of getting a SA position. I would guess that the competition for those firms probably increased precisely because they didn't do layoffs . Most large firms had layoffs and they are also usually the ones with the biggest classes

[Anonymous User]

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

terrible idea IMO

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

Just want to point out that a lot of places will give you better exit options than Latham. Also, the long term staffing problem they've created for themselves is providing rainmaking partners with incentives to take their practice groups elsewhere. Latham NY just suffered a huge loss in its banking practice, and remaining partners in the group are the ones who have no work. Word is that there weren't enough midlevels to support these partners because a lot were Lathamed last year and many of the surviving associates subsequently fled. Here's the ATL article on it.


http://abovethelaw.com/2010/08/musical- ... ur-others/

[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.

A LOT of firms have 100% offer rates now because they've all cut their class sizes. Here's a link to the ATL articles on it.

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/08/more-sum ... fer-rates/

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/07/things-a ... -100-news/

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/07/pepper-h ... ffer-rate/

Latham's MO anyway is to offer everyone and then Latham them right after they start. The idea is to try to hide what is really a stealth offer rescission in their larger layoff numbers. You can assume that many firms will give 100% offers to your class because they've already adjusted, so it's best to choose a firm that is stable and more loyal to associates. Many firms had layoffs, but Latham's were huge AND they Lathamed a ton of first years who had no chance to prove themselves.

[Anonymous User]

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.

The funny thing is, it sounds like he told "The Lawyer" right after the layoffs that the partnership was discussing mass layoffs at the same time that Bob Dell was making his no layoffs promise. I'll let you judge that for yourself though.

http://www.thelawyer.com/lathams-dell-s ... 19.article

[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."

Though, for the record, both Boies and Gibson have laid off people. It might be under the radar, but it has happened.


I can basically count on one hand the firms that definitely haven't laid off people. ATL doesn't have all the info.

But how many and who did they affect? A lot of firms that laid off under the radar only got away with it because they laid off far fewer people than mass layoff firms like Latham and Cadwalader.

[Anonymous User]

I think you (whoever the anonymous user is) are missing my point. If you have the choice between offers from Latham and a market paying firm that didn't have layoffs you are maybe smart to decline Latham. However, to not even apply to a Latham because they laid off people is a terrible idea imo because you drastically reduce your odds of getting a SA position. I would guess that the competition for those firms probably increased precisely because they didn't do layoffs . Most large firms had layoffs and they are also usually the ones with the biggest classes

I agree with this. I'd still bid Latham and Cadwalader as safeties. If one of these places is your only offer then it's better than unemployment. Just try your hardest to survive the first year and then lateral the hell out to a better firm.

[Anonymous User]

Could it be that, ceteris paribus, being stealth-axed at Latham might be better than being stealth-axed elsewhere, because Latham is now known for lathaming?

Latham me once, shame on you. Latham me twice...um *blank stare*...you can't get Lathamed again.

[Anonymous User]

I think you (whoever the anonymous user is) are missing my point. If you have the choice between offers from Latham and a market paying firm that didn't have layoffs you are maybe smart to decline Latham. However, to not even apply to a Latham because they laid off people is a terrible idea imo because you drastically reduce your odds of getting a SA position. I would guess that the competition for those firms probably increased precisely because they didn't do layoffs . Most large firms had layoffs and they are also usually the ones with the biggest classes

I agree with this. I'd still bid Latham and Cadwalader as safeties. If one of these places is your only offer then it's better than unemployment. Just try your hardest to survive the first year and then lateral the hell out to a better firm.

Although, caveat, I'd only bid the likes of Latham and Cadwalader as safeties if I wasn't a strong candidate.

[Desert Fox]

[Anonymous User]

Damn it's been five years.

Considering Latham DC for lit. Feel like I would fit in well there. Should I still be seriously worried about this? Make it a strong factor in my decision? Also considering Hogan/Paul Hastings/Sidley

[Anonymous User]

If the economy completely tanked I doubt anybody is "safe"

[itbdvorm]

As I've said in many threads...EVERYONE laid off hundreds in 2009. Latham did so publicly and got HORRIBLE pr. So everyone else did so stealthy. Literally, everyone other than 1-3 firms. Unless you're talking about Wachtell (too small to be effected) or Susman (plaintiff's litigation - gold mine) - the firm you're comparing with Latham? Did layoffs.

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day did not lay off people in 2009-2010.

[Tiago Splitter]

As I've said in many threads...EVERYONE laid off hundreds in 2009. Latham did so publicly and got HORRIBLE pr. So everyone else did so stealthy. Literally, everyone other than 1-3 firms. Unless you're talking about Wachtell (too small to be effected) or Susman (plaintiff's litigation - gold mine) - the firm you're comparing with Latham? Did layoffs.

Isn't there a big difference between laying off first years just four months in and laying off everyone else?

[lavarman84]

Despite having this knowledge, I'd still accept an offer to work there. I'll accept the risk.

[Anonymous User]

I've decided to accept a Latham NY offer. I too had qualms about getting "Lathamed," but I concluded that the risks are not significantly greater than other biglaw options, for several reasons:

1) Latham took a bad rap for the bloodbath in 2009, and they are acutely aware of the damage it has done.

2) There has been some change in the management echelon since 2009, including the managing partner.

3) They just had a record year in terms of revenue, so their financial health isn't in question - at least for the present.

4) They have the secondthird lowest partner-associate leverage ratio in the V10, trailing Wachtell very closely. I don't think they'll be able to cut a significant number of associates without it impacting their operating capacity adversely.

5) Well, that's unless the economy tanks again like in 2009 and this time the firm axes partners too. But if the shit hits the fan on that kind of scale, I don't think you're really safe anywhere, as anon above has pointed out.

[rpupkin]

I've decided to accept a Latham NY offer. I too had qualms about getting "Lathamed," but I concluded that the risks are not significantly greater than other biglaw options, for several reasons:

1) Latham took a bad rap for the bloodbath in 2009, and they are acutely aware of the damage it has done.


3) They just had a record year in terms of revenue, so their financial health isn't in question - at least for the present.

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.

[

[Anonymous User]

Yes, but Bob Dell's not in charge any more. Between 1990 and 2009 is a nineteen-year gap, whereas the 2009 layoffs are still relatively fresh in people's minds.

I'm not trying to argue that Latham will not lay people off, or even that it's less likely than other firms to lay associates off. The rationale behind my decision was that even if there's a slightly higher risk, it's acceptable given my immediate goals which are served better by going with Latham than the other choices available to me (which, incidentally, also have their own history of layoffs).

[Anonymous User]

The large majority of these lay offs were in the NY office though right?

[nothingtosee]

Yes, but Bob Dell's not in charge any more. Between 1990 and 2009 is a nineteen-year gap, whereas the 2009 layoffs are still relatively fresh in people's minds.

I'm not trying to argue that Latham will not lay people off, or even that it's less likely than other firms to lay associates off. The rationale behind my decision was that even if there's a slightly higher risk, it's acceptable given my immediate goals which are served better by going with Latham than the other choices available to me (which, incidentally, also have their own history of layoffs).

The 2009 layoffs aren't fresh enough to make you avoid it. If going gets tough they can do it this time and say "hey, last time it didn't scare them away, this time it won't either."

I get if it's your only firm, and if you see it as equally bad as your other options. But it might be better to state that instead of rationalize.

Bob Dell didn't make that call on his own. And when the next managing committee brings up the idea , they can give him a call, and he can say "really, law students don't care. Buyer's market."

https://www.lw.com/people/robert-dell

And finally, SOLIDARITY

[lavarman84]

It's going to end up being a personal choice. It's a risk you take with the firm. But you take a risk with every firm. The risks/cons are just different. I think Latham's advantages outweigh that risk/con.