Top Law Schools

Making this choice and finding it difficult because I like the people at both. Is there an actual cultural difference? I'm interested in corporate, what are the firms good at?

Umm... Region...?

Anonymous User wrote:Umm... Region...?

Both NY

Well, one is much better at mass layoffs than the other, so depending on how you feel about those...

I liked Latham's culture more than DPW when I visited both. The people seemed more social and fun. I like the fact that DPW doesn't have a business model which requires cyclical mass layoffs.

Anonymous User wrote:I liked Latham's culture more than DPW when I visited both. The people seemed more social and fun. I like the fact that DPW doesn't have a business model which requires cyclical mass layoffs.

And what type of business model is that?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I liked Latham's culture more than DPW when I visited both. The people seemed more social and fun. I like the fact that DPW doesn't have a business model which requires cyclical mass layoffs.

And what type of business model is that?

See: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=193912

Also just read generally Rayiner and other helpful posters' posts about Latham during that time period. As much as I liked Latham during my interviews, I can't choose a conservative and strong firm like DPW over it.

They are both likely going to fire you in 5 to 7 years anyway, so do not worry too much about the mass layoffs right now. I think it is best to pick a firm that does not have the "up or out" model. But I am not sure how many really exist.

jarofsoup wrote:They are both likely going to fire you in 5 to 7 years anyway, so do not worry too much about the mass layoffs right now. I think it is best to pick a firm that does not have the "up or out" model. But I am not sure how many really exist.

I feel like you're missing something important here.

jarofsoup wrote:They are both likely going to fire you in 5 to 7 years anyway, so do not worry too much about the mass layoffs right now. I think it is best to pick a firm that does not have the "up or out" model. But I am not sure how many really exist.

Basically all major law firms are up or out, but out tends to be pretty cushy for people at either of those firms - not out on the street.

Anyone k ow the exact number of NY attorneys that were let go?

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone k ow the exact number of NY attorneys that were let go?

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... forum_id=2

shouldn't latham's massive profits over the past couple of years coupled with its decreased class sizes make it a relatively safe option in the current market?

*not speaking comparatively to DPW, just asking generally as a rising 2L currently going through the interview process

Any big law firm, including DPW, could and would do what Latham did when put in that situation. They're businesses, not charities.

Fresh Prince wrote:Any big law firm, including DPW, could and would do what Latham did when put in that situation. They're businesses, not charities.

+1. Latham, from what I know, expanded heavily into an industry that collapsed. What were they supposed to do when the work immediately evaporated?

I still think it's a strike against them relative to firms which have managed to not conduct massive layoffs, but the risk that your firm will be heavily invested in an industry that goes belly up is universal.

I hear Texas is doing great now during the domestic oil boom - but as soon as that dries up or the next big thing comes along... this is just how the world works.

thesealocust wrote:

Fresh Prince wrote:Any big law firm, including DPW, could and would do what Latham did when put in that situation. They're businesses, not charities.

+1. Latham, from what I know, expanded heavily into an industry that collapsed. What were they supposed to do when the work immediately evaporated?

I still think it's a strike against them relative to firms which have managed to not conduct massive layoffs, but the risk that your firm will be heavily invested in an industry that goes belly up is universal.

I hear Texas is doing great now during the domestic oil boom - but as soon as that dries up or the next big thing comes along... this is just how the world works.

Latham has a partnership culture that will gladly lay off associates. A place like DPW has a partnership culture that would be more likely to take a hit in PPP rather than conduct massive layoffs to line their pockets.

That's the difference.

p1arnold wrote:

thesealocust wrote:

Fresh Prince wrote:Any big law firm, including DPW, could and would do what Latham did when put in that situation. They're businesses, not charities.

+1. Latham, from what I know, expanded heavily into an industry that collapsed. What were they supposed to do when the work immediately evaporated?

I still think it's a strike against them relative to firms which have managed to not conduct massive layoffs, but the risk that your firm will be heavily invested in an industry that goes belly up is universal.

I hear Texas is doing great now during the domestic oil boom - but as soon as that dries up or the next big thing comes along... this is just how the world works.

Latham has a partnership culture that will gladly lay off associates. A place like DPW has a partnership culture that would be more likely to take a hit in PPP rather than conduct massive layoffs to line their pockets.

That's the difference.

LOL "partnership culture."

Depends on how massive the PPP hit it is we're talking about. The kind sealoucust above is describing is, if it happened at DPW, something that would certainly cause mass layoffs at DPW.

And don't forget that DPW laid off associates during the recession as well.

The risk of a repeat isn't that great, but the difference in how Latham handled things compared to DPW and other firms is somewhat instructive. Latham's layoffs were (1) more widespread and (2) included dumping a lot of first years, most of whom never recovered. DPW showed a willingness and ability to manage through the economic crisis with less damage to their associates than Latham.

If you feel a greater cultural fit with Latham, I can't tell you not to go there, but I do think DPW is the better firm in terms of economic stability, quality of matters and exit opportunities, so unless you just can't stand the people at DPW, it's probably the better choice.

Latham's layoffs were (1) more widespread and (2) included dumping a lot of first years, most of whom never recovered. DPW showed a willingness and ability to manage through the economic crisis with less damage to their associates than Latham.

...that's more because DPW wasn't hit quite the same way Latham was. Any firm that is hit the way Latham was will do what Latham did.

Fresh Prince wrote: Any firm that is hit the way Latham was will do what Latham did.

Latham doesn't do what Latham does for Latham. Latham does what Latham does because Latham is... Latham.

Fresh Prince wrote:...that's more because DPW wasn't hit quite the same way Latham was. Any firm that is hit the way Latham was will do what Latham did.

Many firms were hit hard. Different firms handled things differently. Latham handled it worse than most from an associate perspective. Whatever the cause, that's just a fact.

Few firms were hit as hard as Latham. I'm not trying to cast them in a good light, but any firm would do the same in that situation.

And if we are comparing the classiness of moves here, it is debatable whether DPW offered severance or whether the associate were fired for performance reasons (stealth layoffs). Latham offered a pretty generous severance package and was willing to admit that the firings were related to the financial health of the firm.

Fresh Prince wrote:Few firms were hit as hard as Latham. I'm not trying to cast them in a good light, but any firm would do the same in that situation.

And if we are comparing the classiness of moves here, it is debatable whether DPW offered severance or whether the associate were fired for performance reasons (stealth layoffs). Latham offered a pretty generous severance package and was willing to admit that the firings were related to the financial health of the firm.

I understand that a firm has to do what it has to do to survive. I also understand that Latham was overexposed to PE, finance and some other areas that dried up. But a lot of firms were hit hard. Many firms deferred associates, drastically cut new hiring, etc. I'm not aware of any other major firm that threw first year associates overboard, just a few months into their careers. That was really cold.

As for "stealth layoffs", they're hard to gauge. Every firm, in good times or in bad, moves associates out when it's clear they're no longer on track. Maybe firms were more aggressive in doing that during the economic crisis. But the associate is typically given some reasonable period of time to look for another job, while keeping an office and a position, and while continuing to be paid. I'd rather be in that situation than on the street, even with a severance package.