V10 Layoffs Forum

[Person1111]

Probably a dumb question, but is this largely based on billable hours? Or just more of "we need to cut people, I don't like the look of Bob's face, he's out." I really have no idea how hiring/firing works, insight would be appreciated.

Combination of reviews, billable hours, practice group/office needs, and firm politics. Being well-liked (especially by powerful partners) can only help.

[Pokemon]

Probably a dumb question, but is this largely based on billable hours? Or just more of "we need to cut people, I don't like the look of Bob's face, he's out." I really have no idea how hiring/firing works, insight would be appreciated.

If someone does not like your face your billables will be low anyway so there is no such dilemma usually.

[legalese_retard]

Outing the firm will probably hurt the attorneys let go more than help them. Right now, those attorneys can apply to other firms and put their own spin on why they are looking for a new position. Some firms don't even ask the question. If you out the firm on ATL, the V10 firm will probably be forced into making a generic statement along the lines of "While we do not comment on the confidential employment decisions impacting particular individuals, the firm constantly reviews its internal operations to maximize firm efficiency, which has impacted certain employees of the firm." A firm forced to comment about attorney layoffs will never admit that it is losing money or financially struggling. At best, the firm will say certain attorneys who do not fit the current/future business model were let go; at worst, the firm will say it has been letting go of under-performing attorneys as part of its annual review process.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve lately been wondering about what happened to several our associate litigators who one day are suddenly and unexplainably gone. I was a bit surprised when a friend told me that when someone leaves her [non-BL] firm for another firm her firm throws s/he a small going away party ― I’ve yet to see that happen here (maybe that just doesn’t happen in BL?).

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I’ve lately been wondering about what happened to several our associate litigators who one day are suddenly and unexplainably gone. I was a bit surprised when a friend told me that when someone leaves her [non-BL] firm for another firm her firm throws s/he a small going away party ― I’ve yet to see that happen here (maybe that just doesn’t happen in BL?).

Nah, it must be office dependent. Every associate gets a going away happy hour or something here, even juniors. Though obviously, associates who have been here for a while get nicer parties.

[Anonymous User]

Yea at my NYC biglaw firm, going away parties are common.

[merde_happens]

I’ve lately been wondering about what happened to several our associate litigators who one day are suddenly and unexplainably gone. I was a bit surprised when a friend told me that when someone leaves her [non-BL] firm for another firm her firm throws s/he a small going away party ― I’ve yet to see that happen here (maybe that just doesn’t happen in BL?).

It's possible that you just haven't been invited to them. At least at my office, the honoree chooses list of people to attend (it's usually around 20 or 30 people from my experience).

[whats an updog]

class of 17 incoming associate here, and all the threads plus this one have me shook. considering applying for '19 clerkships jic

[cheaptilts]

class of 17 incoming associate here, and all the threads plus this one have me shook. considering applying for '19 clerkships jic

class of 17 incoming associate here, and all the threads plus this one have me shook. considering applying for '19 clerkships jic

This doesn't make sense, assuming the only reason you'd apply to a temp job like a clerkship was for some sort of safety net. Clerks during the recession got rocked just as bad, if not worse. Easier to not rehire someone than it is to shitcan them. Might as well stay and take the $

[dabigchina]

class of 17 incoming associate here, and all the threads plus this one have me shook. considering applying for '19 clerkships jic

+1, although I'm not looking at clerkships. I wonder how much if it is an actual uptick in layoffs and how much of it is just increased willingness to share from people who got up and outted.

[RaceJudicata]

I thought I saw an article about retention rates but can't find it right now. I figure there has to be some increased retention because of NYC TO 180, forcing some firms to have to shit can some folks that otherwise would have left voluntarily. Just my 0.02.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Kirkland?

[umichman]

Cleary?

[Johann]

Remember, there is a difference between "stealth layoffs" and "asked to leave for not meeting the standards expected of a X year associate"

Most firms have "right-sized", so if you're not pulling your weight you can't just hang around forever anymore.

i get youre a partner and trying to toe the line, but that is the definition of a "stealth layoff" - someone that got asked to leave/fired by a firm with a long runway so as not to demoralize the morale of the rest.

[Johann]

I feel like people are forgetting that V10's have an up or out model? Isn't it expected that underperformers are pushed out after their are too expensive for document review?

it is expected for those who know. but yeah, nothing wrong with making people aware of the situation. firms can layoff people all they want, but prospective talent should know those firms that have a history of laying people off before committing to a firm. its just about information symmetry.

[Johann]

I wouldn't let AtL know cause that is ridiculous, though am curious as to practice area (or is it firmwide?). There does seem to be an uptick in fired stories on this forum though, which is worrisome and surprising since the economy seems to be doing really well.

a partner just said firms are "right sizing". obviously they are laying off. just remember what a 10 to 1 associate to partner ratio means after 8 years.

[Johann]

Every firm does "stealth layoffs" to 3+ years - some start earlier. I'd only really consider it notable if they were axing like 20% of headcount at once or something.

Edit: And to offer the associates' perspective on the last couple of posts: there's also "partners can't generate enough work so they need to cut people," not just "associates not meeting standards / hours."

How is a "stealth layoff" distinguished from just a regular layoff?

P.S. Out. The. Firm.

a regular layoff usually means for cause for something egregious. stealth layoff means the firm is trying to trim significant fat.

[Johann]

Out the firm to ATL. Damage to reputation is basically the only leverage we have against layoffs.

But won't all these firms do layoffs? Maybe a list of which firms are"safer" would be more useful.

No, they don't.

Agreed that there should be a sticky to legal employment reminding people about Latham firing essentially a whole class of first years and/or listing the firms that let people keep their jobs/pay them half salary to take a year off.

You don't think all V10 firms will lay people off or push people out? No big law firm manages hiring that precisely. Maybe people move on on their own, but I don't believe that none of these firms will use stealth layoffs if the bottom line demands it.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Sullivan & Cromwell
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Latham & Watkins
Kirkland & Ellis
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

yeah latham has a warranted track record as the most ruthless in this list. they ramp up the leverage during good times and then cut the shit out of it during mediocre/bad times.

[Johann]

Probably a dumb question, but is this largely based on billable hours? Or just more of "we need to cut people, I don't like the look of Bob's face, he's out." I really have no idea how hiring/firing works, insight would be appreciated.

a little of both. your hours are based on who likes working with you. so when its time to cut, yeah its not hard to find a couple of associates who are low on hours because people dont like the way his face looked.

[Npret]

Every firm does "stealth layoffs" to 3+ years - some start earlier. I'd only really consider it notable if they were axing like 20% of headcount at once or something.

Edit: And to offer the associates' perspective on the last couple of posts: there's also "partners can't generate enough work so they need to cut people," not just "associates not meeting standards / hours."

How is a "stealth layoff" distinguished from just a regular layoff?

P.S. Out. The. Firm.

a regular layoff usually means for cause for something egregious. stealth layoff means the firm is trying to trim significant fat.

Huh. I thought that was just being fired.
To me layoff is when the firm has decided to cut associate numbers whether by group or by year and announces that fact- like closing an office.

The firm stealth layoffs by not announcing financial reasons behind the cuts and lets people go quietly. Agree on that definition.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Remember, there is a difference between "stealth layoffs" and "asked to leave for not meeting the standards expected of a X year associate"

Most firms have "right-sized", so if you're not pulling your weight you can't just hang around forever anymore.

i get youre a partner and trying to toe the line, but that is the definition of a "stealth layoff" - someone that got asked to leave/fired by a firm with a long runway so as not to demoralize the morale of the rest.

But isn't there a difference between "we need to lay off someone for financial reasons and we like you least" (stealth layoff) and "we think your work is bad enough we don't want you around any more" (getting fired)? (Your later "for cause" v. "trim the fat" seems to suggest this.)

[dixiecupdrinking]

Every firm does "stealth layoffs" to 3+ years - some start earlier. I'd only really consider it notable if they were axing like 20% of headcount at once or something.

Edit: And to offer the associates' perspective on the last couple of posts: there's also "partners can't generate enough work so they need to cut people," not just "associates not meeting standards / hours."

How is a "stealth layoff" distinguished from just a regular layoff?

P.S. Out. The. Firm.

a regular layoff usually means for cause for something egregious. stealth layoff means the firm is trying to trim significant fat.

Huh. I thought that was just being fired.
To me layoff is when the firm has decided to cut associate numbers whether by group or by year and announces that fact- like closing an office.

The firm stealth layoffs by not announcing financial reasons behind the cuts and lets people go quietly. Agree on that definition.

This is right.

"Layoff" implies a reduction in force, eg for economic reasons. It's not just getting fired because you fucked up.

"Stealth layoffs" is when a firm systematically lays people off to reduce headcount but doesn't announce it and suggests that each person laid off is getting the boot for performance reasons.

Getting terminated for something egregious is just getting fired.

[barcoach]

Layoff's are part of life in every business.

If you want security in your law firm bring in business. Start to Build your BOOK early!

[Tiny Rick!]

Layoff's are part of life in every business.

If you want security in your law firm bring in business. Start to Build your BOOK early!

I didn't know Donald trump posted on TLS.

[Abbie Doobie]

Layoff's are part of life in every business.

If you want security in your law firm bring in business. Start to Build your BOOK early!

(shitboomer)


die already, please