Top Law Schools

If this doesn't exist (and I don't think it does), I think it would be helpful to try to compile a thread with information about firms that have, in one way or another, screwed associates with undeserved no-offers, unwanted deferrals, first- or second-year layoffs, etc. Obviously a lot of this might not be 100% verifiable, but it's still important for people going through OCI in a few months to have an idea, especially if they have the luxury of choosing between 2+ offers. It sucks to think about, but with the economy as shaky as it currently is, it's important not to let this slip under the radar. I'll start with the one everyone already knows:

2/2009, Latham & Watkins lays off 190 associates:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwi ... 250-staff/

Katten

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/11/katten-r ... t-on-time/

Drinker Biddle: layoffs, 68% offer rate, and salary cuts in 2009:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/10/nationwi ... es-to-cut/

How is this helpful if you are only posting firms that laid people off during the worst part of the recession?

InGoodFaith wrote:How is this helpful if you are only posting firms that laid people off during the worst part of the recession?

Because some firms didn't lay anyone off during the recession. They cut class sizes drastically, but they were agile enough to weather the recession without screwing over associates. Presumably those are the strongest, most resilient firms, and knowing that about a firm is a pretty valuable piece of information heading into OCI. Of course no firms are laying anyone off right now, but it's nice to know which firms can get through another (possible) downturn without resorting to that, or no-offers, or rescission of offers, or deferrals, etc.

Why so many anonymous posts?

Anonymous User wrote:Because some firms didn't lay anyone off during the recession. They cut class sizes drastically, but they were agile enough to weather the recession without screwing over associates. Presumably those are the strongest, most resilient firms, and knowing that about a firm is a pretty valuable piece of information heading into OCI. Of course no firms are laying anyone off right now, but it's nice to know which firms can get through another (possible) downturn without resorting to that, or no-offers, or rescission of offers, or deferrals, etc.

This isn't really true. Tons of firms stealthed people without attracting ATL scrutiny.

Past performance is not an indication of future outcomes.

[/quote]This isn't really true. Tons of firms stealthed people without attracting ATL scrutiny.[/quote]


Absolutely, and some firms folded. Recently heard about a firm in St. Louis though so nothing on ATL. Maybe it was not a 250+ firm, but it was supposably big in the area. Warning signs that I heard were not hiring hardly any summers and attorneys quietly leaving the firm. Went on for a few years and then this year, folded.

Anonymous User wrote:http://www.lawshucks.com

This.

InGoodFaith wrote:Past performance is not an indication of future outcomes.

+1. sure latham improved its financial health at the unfortunate expense of some first years. but if they are now on solid ground, the incoming batch might even be in a better position than those at firms that tried to weather the storm.

It is always helpful knowing what firms do stuff like this. It doesn't always happen, but pretty frequently firms that do layoffs, no offers, or lower compensation in any way do so because they are struggling. If they struggle in the past they are absolutely more likely than other firms to struggle in the future.

See Dewey two years before folding

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/dewey-le ... rral-year/

Also, Howrey two years before folding

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/06/howrey-f ... s-to-100k/

TTH wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:http://www.lawshucks.com

This.

+1, and yes, in hindsight Howrey and Dewey were in trouble, but people also thought the end was near for OMM and Orrick. Both seemed less stable than Dewey.

This whole conversation is a waste of time until you're choosing between offers.

IAFG wrote:

TTH wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:http://www.lawshucks.com

This.

+1, and yes, in hindsight Howrey and Dewey were in trouble, but people also thought the end was near for OMM and Orrick. Both seemed less stable than Dewey.

This whole conversation is a waste of time until you're choosing between offers.

This. Dewey was actually stealing rainmakers from OMM's NY corporate group, and as of last year Dewey seemed to be doing quite well post-merger while OMM seemed to be on shaky ground. We all know how that turned out.

I wouldn't necessarily look at layoffs as a sign that a firm is unstable. It may mean that, but it can equally mean that the firm is taking corrective measures to avoid becoming the next collapses. Regardless of which of those it means for the firm's overall health, though, it does mean that a firm that engaged in mass layoff may be seen as more risky for the individual associates. As pertains to Latham, it is worth noting that the firm fired a number of people in 1990 after Drexel Burnham went under because Latham was so heavily involved in high-yield debt. Most thought it wouldn't happen again, particularly when Bob Dell said that layoffs would not be considered a year earlier. (http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwi ... ng-for-it/) Once again, we all know how that turned out.

Also, some firms that did cut people end up in a better position than those that did not after the worst part of the economy.

r6_philly wrote:Also, some firms that did cut people end up in a better position than those that did not after the worst part of the economy.

Of course. Firms that do the poorest and have to lay people off during recessions do the best and become very strong financially during recoveries. It's how they structure their business: higher leverage = higher risk = higher reward. It's simple economics any way you look at it.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Also, some firms that did cut people end up in a better position than those that did not after the worst part of the economy.

Of course. Firms that do the poorest and have to lay people off during recessions do the best and become very strong financially during recoveries. It's how they structure their business: higher leverage = higher risk = higher reward. It's simple economics any way you look at it.

No sign of recovery anytime soon though.

ajaxconstructions wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Also, some firms that did cut people end up in a better position than those that did not after the worst part of the economy.

Of course. Firms that do the poorest and have to lay people off during recessions do the best and become very strong financially during recoveries. It's how they structure their business: higher leverage = higher risk = higher reward. It's simple economics any way you look at it.

No sign of recovery anytime soon though.

Well, I've read conflicting posts on XO from Latham associates saying they are alternatively either "slammed" or that their office is "dead." I don't know which to believe, if any. All I know is that Latham bills essentially the same rates as firms with lower PPP which can only mean that they use leverage. This makes their firm's business model riskier than those of Latham's peer firms.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

ajaxconstructions wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Also, some firms that did cut people end up in a better position than those that did not after the worst part of the economy.

Of course. Firms that do the poorest and have to lay people off during recessions do the best and become very strong financially during recoveries. It's how they structure their business: higher leverage = higher risk = higher reward. It's simple economics any way you look at it.

No sign of recovery anytime soon though.

Well, I've read conflicting posts on XO from Latham associates saying they are alternatively either "slammed" or that their office is "dead." I don't know which to believe, if any. All I know is that Latham bills essentially the same rates as firms with lower PPP which can only mean that they use leverage. This makes their firm's business model riskier than those of Latham's peer firms.

Why choose such a risky firm? Unlikely that people who get Latham offers don't have other comparable offers.

.

ajaxconstructions wrote:Why choose such a risky firm? Unlikely that people who get Latham offers don't have other comparable offers.

Pretty sure most people who are getting Latham offers and taking them are going to have mostly other risky offers.

Other serial layoff offenders that haven't been mentioned ITT: Cadwalader and White & Case. White & Case also had tons of deferred associates.

Then there are the no-offer offenders. Like Kirkland & Ellis. They seem to have improved, but their summer 2009/summer 2010 numbers were dreadful.

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

ajaxconstructions wrote:

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Also, some firms that did cut people end up in a better position than those that did not after the worst part of the economy.

Of course. Firms that do the poorest and have to lay people off during recessions do the best and become very strong financially during recoveries. It's how they structure their business: higher leverage = higher risk = higher reward. It's simple economics any way you look at it.

No sign of recovery anytime soon though.

Well, I've read conflicting posts on XO from Latham associates saying they are alternatively either "slammed" or that their office is "dead." I don't know which to believe, if any. All I know is that Latham bills essentially the same rates as firms with lower PPP which can only mean that they use leverage. This makes their firm's business model riskier than those of Latham's peer firms.

I have two very good friends who work at latham who tell me they have a very specific work culture. There are 'chosen' associates who get on the 'partner' track from day one and they overload you with work to see if u can handle it. And then there are others who don't get as much work bc they haven't attained that status. That explains why my two friends who are at the same office, one has worked everyday until 10pm since January and the other has had almost every weekend off. They are both in corporate

keg411 wrote:

ajaxconstructions wrote:Why choose such a risky firm? Unlikely that people who get Latham offers don't have other comparable offers.

Then there are the no-offer offenders. Like Kirkland & Ellis. They seem to have improved, but their summer 2009/summer 2010 numbers were dreadful.

I'm not sure which office this is in reference to, but I summered in 2010 and we had 100% offers. The summers of 2009 had 2 no-offers (out of about 20 summers) and neither was due to the economy.

Anonymous User wrote:

keg411 wrote:

ajaxconstructions wrote:Why choose such a risky firm? Unlikely that people who get Latham offers don't have other comparable offers.

Then there are the no-offer offenders. Like Kirkland & Ellis. They seem to have improved, but their summer 2009/summer 2010 numbers were dreadful.

I'm not sure which office this is in reference to, but I summered in 2010 and we had 100% offers. The summers of 2009 had 2 no-offers (out of about 20 summers) and neither was due to the economy.

K&E Chicago in summer 2009? LOLno. Have incredibly inside information on that one. (Possible some were cold offers, so they don't show up in NALP). Maybe K&E NYC was different, but everything I've heard from someone extremely reliable was that there were at least 25% no-offers in Chicago that summer.