WSJ article and graphic on firm hiring based on Chambers Forum

[sunynp]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/02/law ... whos-down/

The ranks of summer associates were larger in 2012 than in 2011 at more than half the firms surveyed. But at the same time, firms were more likely than not to have smaller first-year classes in 2012 compared with 2011.

Includes this handy chart of SA class size and first year class size:


http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/02/law ... teractive/

[Anonymous User]

.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

LaTTTham

[sunynp]

Here is some data of firms with more than 100 associates NATIONWIDE.. I left of the change of starting class size compared to 2008, because, really? it didn't fit on the page and seemed the least relevant

Also this formatting sucks so look at the real graph for ease of reading, just wanted people to see what was there.


Firm Name No. of summers 2012 % Change since 2011 % Change since 2008 Size of starting class 2012% Change since 2011
Davis Polk 132 38% -4% N/A N/A

Latham & Watkins 122 -27% -54% N/A N/A

Sidley Austin 111 -6% -41% 104 44%

Cleary Gottlieb 145 29% 54% 110 36%

Sullivan & Cromwell 122 -11% -20% 114 28%

Weil Gotshal 110 55% -40% 130 25%

Jones Day 156 -6% -35% 117 24%

Gibson Dunn 171 46% 2% 103 16%

Paul Weiss 120 19% 7% 66 8%

Simpson Thacher 107 7% -26% 112 4%

Kirkland & Ellis 166 19% -14% 140 -1%

Skadden 156 66% -43% 86 -7%

Ropes & Gray 124 0% -27% 116 -28%


NOTE: do not see the discrepancy between the higher number of SAs this summer and a lower number of starting 1st years to mean there were no offers last year. We don't have the exact number of SAs last summer, but someone can calculate it from the percentage change. If firms increased SAs this year it won't show up in increased starting 1st years til next fall.

I hope this data will help with bid lists.

[dixiecupdrinking]

How convenient for Latham that their "N/A" for the first year class of 2012 prevents the WSJ from calculating a percentage change from 2009.