Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too Forum

[09042014]

The only difference is how likely they'll have to.

[baal hadad]

We are all cogs

[jbagelboy]

FWIW Schulte would never do this

[SLS_AMG]

The only difference is how likely they'll have to.

And that's a pretty big difference. Not all firms hire a billion attorneys during boom times.

[09042014]

The only difference is how likely they'll have to.

And that's a pretty big difference. Not all firms hire a billion attorneys during boom times.

Yes they do. Someone has to do the hours to get the bills paid.

[Br3v]

If they had to*


?

[09042014]

If they had to*


?

If the demand drops.

[SLS_AMG]

The only difference is how likely they'll have to.

And that's a pretty big difference. Not all firms hire a billion attorneys during boom times.

Yes they do. Someone has to do the hours to get the bills paid.

Nope. Many top firms maintained their associate-to-partner ratios through the recession. Not everyone went from 6:1 to 3:1 and are now back to 5:1.

[mr.hands]

I've noticed that you post a lot of one-sentence "this is how the world works, kid" threads. Not sure why...

[Micdiddy]

I've noticed that you post a lot of one-sentence "this is how the world works, kid" threads. Not sure why...

He's really bored at work ... And at home.

[Mal Reynolds]

So you're saying between two firms, I should pick the one that has or hasn't Lathamed in the past? Because I will pick the one who hasn't ten times out of ten.

[09042014]

I've noticed that you post a lot of one-sentence "this is how the world works, kid" threads. Not sure why...

Better than another V20 v another V20 thread.

[09042014]

So you're saying between two firms, I should pick the one that has or hasn't Lathamed in the past? Because I will pick the one who hasn't ten times out of ten.

Most firms lathamed in 2009. At least Latham had the balls do it straight and gave generous severance.

There may be reasons that caused the first issues that still exist. But it's silly to think that these firms are the only one will to assfuck you for some money.

Certainly big firms who were able to weather the storm probably can weather another storm, but that's not always going to be the case. Some firms just luckily had good BK practice to carry them, or have huge fucking cases that let them weather the storm.

But picking Reed Smith over Winston because of 2012 may not be the best bet.

[09042014]

The only difference is how likely they'll have to.

And that's a pretty big difference. Not all firms hire a billion attorneys during boom times.

Yes they do. Someone has to do the hours to get the bills paid.

Nope. Many top firms maintained their associate-to-partner ratios through the recession. Not everyone went from 6:1 to 3:1 and are now back to 5:1.

I'm not sure if ratio really matters. If 20% of Revenue falls out the window, you gotta cut hard no matter what.

[Mal Reynolds]

So you're saying between two firms, I should pick the one that has or hasn't Lathamed in the past? Because I will pick the one who hasn't ten times out of ten.

Most firms lathamed in 2009. At least Latham had the balls do it straight and gave generous severance.

There may be reasons that caused the first issues that still exist. But it's silly to think that these firms are the only one will to assfuck you for some money.

Certainly big firms who were able to weather the storm probably can weather another storm, but that's not always going to be the case. Some firms just luckily had good BK practice to carry them, or have huge fucking cases that let them weather the storm.

But picking Reed Smith over Winston because of 2012 may not be the best bet.

So then what overriding consideration would make you choose winston in this case?

[dixiecupdrinking]

Eh. Some firms' leadership is quicker to do shit like this than others'.

[mr.hands]

I've noticed that you post a lot of one-sentence "this is how the world works, kid" threads. Not sure why...

Better than another V20 v another V20 thread.

That's a fair point.

[moonman157]

I'm just waiting for DF to post a threat that says "Remember: you and everyone you love will eventually die."

[brazleton]

.

[DELG]

just do go to firm that's loaded

[baal hadad]

just do go to firm that's loaded

Just do wachtell

[DELG]

just do go to firm that's loaded

Just do wachtell

exactly

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

IMO these threads where someone is worried about Latham or Weil because of layoffs in the past are misguided. You're only concerned about your job security in the future, and I'm willing to bet those firms would tiptoe around any talk of layoffs like a minefield. At a minimum, I don't think they'd be any more likely to lay off people than their peers. The bias was toward the more prominent offenders, but everybody laid people off in 2009 and 2010 (except for maybe Wachtell, Quinn and a couple others). Money's no guarantee either--Cahill's almost as profitable as they come and still laid off something like ten percent of their associates twice. You're at risk anywhere a senior partners decides that you are a newfound impediment to his dream of a third summer home.

[Anonymous User]

I'm just waiting for DF to post a threat that says "Remember: you and everyone you love will eventually die."

[Mal Reynolds]

I'm just waiting for DF to post a threat that says "Remember: you and everyone you love will eventually die."

Don't be a coward. Associate this with your username.