Top Law Schools

I realize based on some conversations that a lot of people didn't research law firms prior to beginning law school, or possibly not even until this summer. As a result I feel that many members of the class of 2012 don't know what firms have reputations for having absolutely devastated the careers of many of their associates.

Latham's layoffs were particularly noteworthy for the fact that they laid of first year associates - losing a big firm job after even 2 or 3 years often still leaves one with an impressive enough resume line item to lateral to another firm or opportunity, but being laid off right after starting left a lot of people high and dry.

Prior to Lathaming (yes, it's a verb now) its associates Latham was very much on the rise, with an extremely positive vibe and colutre for being 'laid back'. The firm had (has?) a CA headquarters but was expanding heavily into NYC during the boom. It was ranked for years in the Vault 10 - not especially meaningful on its own, but when people refereed to 'V10' firms as a proxy for desirability and prestige they were referring to Latham as recently as a few years back.

Career Center/Lateral Link, the Above the Law law firm information center, wrote:In February 2009, Latham instituted massive layoffs, terminating 190 associates and 250 staff. In the New York office, over half of the first-year class was laid off less than four months after starting, and in the Los Angeles office, a third of the first-year class was laid off. Lateral Link Members report that management has "not been entirely open about layoffs and business prospects at the firm" but report that morale, which was at an “all-time low,” is “improving.” Despite the economic downturn, in January 2010, the firm announced it would be opening two new offices, in Beijing and Houston.

Consider this an open thread for things many firms would rather the class of 2012 had forgotten about going into our fall recruitment program.

---------

From a later post in the thread I made:

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/

An ATL story from before the layoff announcement wrote: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.

From what I've read, I'm under the impression the LATHAMINGS were particularly brutal because they had absolutely no sympathy towards the laid-off associates as they effectively ruined the associates' biglaw careers.

EDIT: In the middle of typing this post Bob Dell crashed in through my window like a one-man SWAT team and Lathamed me, mid-fucking-sentence.

TheBigMediocre wrote:From what I've read, I'm under the impression the LATHAMINGS were particularly brutal because they had absolutely no sympathy to the laid-off associates as they ruined their biglaw careers.

EDIT: In the middle of typing this post Bob Dell crashed in through my window and Lathamed me, mid-fucking-sentence.

Latham was actually better than most at least in that, IIRC, they admitted the layoffs were not really performance-based but had to do with the failing economy.

amyLAchemist wrote:I have a good friend who got Lathamed. What was particularly shitty was that they actually had a meeting with the new associates and told they there wouldn't be layoffs.

But yeah, what mallard said. They weren't as bad as other firms, but I think it was just the way it all happened, and then lathamed became a verb in common parlance of lawyers and law students. Pretty damaging to their rep., I guess.

I don't think stuff like this helped, either.

mallard wrote:

TheBigMediocre wrote:From what I've read, I'm under the impression the LATHAMINGS were particularly brutal because they had absolutely no sympathy to the laid-off associates as they ruined their biglaw careers.

EDIT: In the middle of typing this post Bob Dell crashed in through my window and Lathamed me, mid-fucking-sentence.

Latham was actually better than most at least in that, IIRC, they admitted the layoffs were not really performance-based but had to do with the failing economy.

And they paid out 6 months worth of salary. Much more than other firms.

But the main point is still credited.

as one of those 2012ers who knows next to nothing about firm reputations, I thank you for the background info. If anyone else wants to list other firms with similar history I can say it would be appreciated. Going through abovethelaw only goes so far.

samiseaborn wrote:as one of those 2012ers who knows next to nothing about firm reputations, I thank you for the background info. If anyone else wants to list other firms with similar history I can say it would be appreciated. Going through abovethelaw only goes so far.

http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker/

I'm interviewing with a firm that has had zero layoffs and actually grew last year. I mean, this seems like a good sign, but I was worried that was a "calm before the storm" situation. Any thoughts?

mallard wrote:

samiseaborn wrote:as one of those 2012ers who knows next to nothing about firm reputations, I thank you for the background info. If anyone else wants to list other firms with similar history I can say it would be appreciated. Going through abovethelaw only goes so far.

http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker/

Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interviewing with a firm that has had zero layoffs and actually grew last year. I mean, this seems like a good sign, but I was worried that was a "calm before the storm" situation. Any thoughts?

Depends on the firm.

mallard wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interviewing with a firm that has had zero layoffs and actually grew last year. I mean, this seems like a good sign, but I was worried that was a "calm before the storm" situation. Any thoughts?

Depends on the firm.

Knobbe Martens. I have been having trouble really finding much info about them at all re: financial stability except they grew, and really like the firm.

Anonymous User wrote:

mallard wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interviewing with a firm that has had zero layoffs and actually grew last year. I mean, this seems like a good sign, but I was worried that was a "calm before the storm" situation. Any thoughts?

Depends on the firm.

Knobbe Martens. I have been having trouble really finding much info about them at all re: financial stability except they grew, and really like the firm.

Not sure if IP powerhouses were hurt that much by the downturn, but amyLAchemist will probably know more (she was here before, right?).

mallard wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

mallard wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interviewing with a firm that has had zero layoffs and actually grew last year. I mean, this seems like a good sign, but I was worried that was a "calm before the storm" situation. Any thoughts?

Depends on the firm.

Knobbe Martens. I have been having trouble really finding much info about them at all re: financial stability except they grew, and really like the firm.

Not sure if IP powerhouses were hurt that much by the downturn, but amyLAchemist will probably know more (she was here before, right?).

Many were. Some weren't. It somewhat depends on lots of things, i.e., the technologies they deal with and what their practice consists of (lit/pros/lic/etc).

Anecdotally...

A biglaw firm I've worked at weathered the storm pretty well, but still shed a few IP associates. They do a mix of technologies and pros/lit/lic/etc.

Another I've worked at has seen a tiny decrease in work, but has still hired the same number of summers and has been hiring laid off/permanently deferred associates. They do various technologies, but also are limited to lit.

I wish I thought there was a way to know whether a law firm is in stable shape or not. I am the parent of a 2L and I am watching as he bids for interviews and he is wondering what you are all wondering--is this firm able to follow through on a commitment? Unfortunately I can tell you two things from my own experience: (1) lawyers aren't very good at managing because they're egotistical and haven't been trained to do it and (2) lawyers ARE very good at lying and therefore you believe them when they tell you--which is obviously in their self-interest--that their firms are doing well.

If a firm has had layoffs and done some pretty awful stuff like Latham did, maybe that firm is more stable than one which hasn't because it is now lean and mean and has had to endure the bad reputation it earned yet still came out alive. If a firm has never had layoffs maybe it is in denial and cruising for a bruising. Hard to know.

Other things factor in. A huge case, one which provided lots of attorneys lots of billable hours, can settle all of a sudden, leaving a void in workflow. A client can be stolen away, or can get mad and leave. A client can turn out to be a Bernie Madoff and work can evaporate that way. Who would have thought Lehman Brothers would go out of existence?

I suggest trying to establish a personal relationship with a partner early in your career at a place and perhaps if a practice group leaves a sinking ship you can follow. Always hedge your bets. Do try to double-check what you're being told about what the firm's business is like. Talk to alumni and those who are at the firm now. That's about all you can do. Besides pray.

Paul Hastings has repeatedly fucked their people over... last summer they created a death match in the NY office amongst the SAs. Told them on day one that only a few would make it.

Stealth layoffs of attorneys.

remember when they fired the woman who had a miscarriage? good times...

Voyager wrote:Paul Hastings has repeatedly fucked their people over... last summer they created a death match in the NY office amongst the SAs. Told them on day one that only a few would make it.

Stealth layoffs of attorneys.

remember when they fired the woman who had a miscarriage? good times...

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP

# 2009 Summer 2Ls considered for associate offers: 42
# offers made: 25

Never Forget

ah... here we go: http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/breaking ... -layoffs-/

"After my miscarriage, I had discussed my concern with several associates that Paul Hastings may use that opportunity to lay me off quickly before I have a chance to get pregnant again. Those associates thought it unfathomable that a firm would be so callous and assured me that Paul Hastings isn’t that kind of a place. What a lesson this has been for them – and for me."

...

In boom times, Knobbe Martens interviewed UVA students with an average 3.07 GPA - substantially below the interview averages for any other law firm. I have no idea what to make of it, but there you go.

Anonymous User wrote:In boom times, Knobbe Martens interviewed UVA students with an average 3.07 GPA - substantially below the interview averages for any other law firm. I have no idea what to make of it, but there you go.

I think Knobbe is a more extreme version of the usual IP firm practice of caring more about undergraduate or graduate degrees and research.

This is a great idea for a thread.

mallard wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:In boom times, Knobbe Martens interviewed UVA students with an average 3.07 GPA - substantially below the interview averages for any other law firm. I have no idea what to make of it, but there you go.

I think Knobbe is a more extreme version of the usual IP firm practice of caring more about undergraduate or graduate degrees and research.

Yeah, they don't even have my full LS transcript and I am interviewing. It's bizarre.

.

NYAssociate wrote:I don't think layoffs are indicative of anything other than firm health. Latham's pulling the trigger doesn't mean they're more trigger happy than, say, S&C or Wachtell. Those firms would've taken drastic measures too if they suffered in a similar way.

It's all about being at the right place at the right time, and that is largely out of your control. I don't think there's anything wrong with going to Latham at this point for that reason.

Outed as Bob Dell.

.