Page 1 of 2
Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:12 pm
by 09042014
The only difference is how likely they'll have to.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:12 pm
by baal hadad
We are all cogs
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:15 pm
by jbagelboy
FWIW Schulte would never do this
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:17 pm
by SLS_AMG
Desert Fox wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:46 pm
by 09042014
SLS_AMG wrote:Desert Fox wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:48 pm
by Br3v
If they had to*
?
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:08 pm
by 09042014
Br3v wrote:If they had to*
?
If the demand drops.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:10 pm
by SLS_AMG
Desert Fox wrote:SLS_AMG wrote:Desert Fox wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:44 am
by mr.hands
I've noticed that you post a lot of one-sentence "this is how the world works, kid" threads. Not sure why...
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:56 am
by Micdiddy
mr.hands wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:59 am
by 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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:01 am
by 09042014
mr.hands wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:23 am
by 09042014
Mal Reynolds wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:27 am
by 09042014
SLS_AMG wrote:Desert Fox wrote:SLS_AMG wrote:Desert Fox wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:34 am
by Mal Reynolds
Desert Fox wrote:Mal Reynolds wrote: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?
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:48 am
by dixiecupdrinking
Eh. Some firms' leadership is quicker to do shit like this than others'.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:53 am
by mr.hands
Desert Fox wrote:mr.hands wrote: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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:05 am
by moonman157
I'm just waiting for DF to post a threat that says "Remember: you and everyone you love will eventually die."
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:16 am
by brazleton
.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:27 am
by DELG
just do go to firm that's loaded
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:34 am
by baal hadad
DELG wrote:just do go to firm that's loaded
Just do wachtell
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:34 am
by DELG
baal hadad wrote:DELG wrote:just do go to firm that's loaded
Just do wachtell
exactly
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:51 pm
by 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.
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:30 pm
by Anonymous User
moonman157 wrote:I'm just waiting for DF to post a threat that says "Remember: you and everyone you love will eventually die."
Re: Any firm would Latham or Winston you if they had too
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:31 pm
by Mal Reynolds
Anonymous User wrote:moonman157 wrote: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.