Top Law Schools

Stealth layoffs happening at my V10. 3rd years plus. Not sure how this can be happening cause the firm had a blockbuster year last year.

Does anyone else at V10 or elsewhere know of this happening at their firm and is anyone getting any info on why?

Out the firm to us and above the law. It's the only way to keep the market informed of back actors

Do you mind PMing me OP?

grades?? wrote:Out the firm to us and above the law. It's the only way to keep the market informed of back actors

Considering leaking to ATL just trying to get a sense of the market. This is obviously very sensitive so if it turns out it's only my group at my firm I'm not going to divulge so as not to put myself or my colleagues at risk.

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 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?

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."

Anonymous User wrote: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.

This is more than the average culling, for sure.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: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.

This is more than the average culling, for sure.

If that's the case, at least let above the law know so they can leak it

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.

Curious why OP did not name the firm. V10's have massive classes, you are anonymous. Say the name.

I think he said because he's not sure if it's firm-wide or just his practice group yet.

Anonymous User wrote: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.

rahulg91 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: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?

Regular layoffs are publicly announced by the firm like when support staff is let go or anoffice is closed. Stealth layoffs are done behind the scenes so that word of possible financial issues are not made public.

OP: you have nothing to gain by naming the firm. Let a laid off employee do that if they chose to do so. People are only thinking of their own self interest when they demand that firms be outed. It's like"name the firm so I know not to bid on them."

itbdvorm wrote: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.

Yes. But it's odd when an associate who has been getting rave reviews and full bonus suddenly isn't meeting standards with no warning.

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

jkpolk wrote: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.

Npret wrote:

jkpolk wrote: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.

There are layoffs -- when its publicly announced

There are stealth layoffs -- when you suddenly get fired for performance without warning when your group/firm happens to be slow as hell.

There are up or out firings -- when you get too old and aren't going to make partner. Usually they give you a long while to set up an exit.

There are performance firings -- when people think you aren't good enough, are weird, don't bill enough, etc. You'll usually get some documented bad feedback first (always lateral if you get a bad review). It used to be standard procedure to give these people 3-6 months to find a new gig. But I've heard of multiple V25 firms giving virtually no notice (pack your shit by the end of the week), limited severance, and only 1-3 months left on the website.

A lot of firings are a mix of stealth and performance. If you only bring in the business for 5 associates and you have 3, you are going to ding the two you think are the worst. There are also performance firings where everyone loved you, then your hours get low cause of stuff outside of your control. And then you are the one on the chopping block cause of low hours.

I think firms are more willing to stealth on a group by group basis. My old firm was hiring like wild but at the same time stealthing in groups that were doing bad. And not just corp vs lit. Like hiring anyone one step above shitlaw for FCPA and firing 4 out of 6 antitrust associates even though you should probably be able to just move those folks over.

The big take away here is that firms, for whatever reason, are refusing to carry dead weight for any reason at all. Long gone are the days when someone they don't like is told to leave within 6 months and then after 6 months you still get more time on the site, severance etc.

jkpolk wrote:

Npret wrote:

jkpolk wrote: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

There's variation among that group re. hiring and firing practices. The only way we know is by ATL/sharing information.

jkpolk wrote:There's variation among that group re. hiring and firing practices. The only way we know is by ATL/sharing information.

As someone that was stealth fired from one of these firms - I think its tough to expect associates to out the firm and risk burning bridges as they look for employment.

Anonymous User wrote:

jkpolk wrote:There's variation among that group re. hiring and firing practices. The only way we know is by ATL/sharing information.

As someone that was stealth fired from one of these firms - I think its tough to expect associates to out the firm and risk burning bridges as they look for employment.

That's exactly my point. OP gains nothing from putting the firm and it isn't as if any of these firms are completely immune to laying people off. People should assume stealth layoffs can occur at any firm.

Npret wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

jkpolk wrote:There's variation among that group re. hiring and firing practices. The only way we know is by ATL/sharing information.

As someone that was stealth fired from one of these firms - I think its tough to expect associates to out the firm and risk burning bridges as they look for employment.

That's exactly my point. OP gains nothing from putting the firm and it isn't as if any of these firms are completely immune to laying people off. People should assume stealth layoffs can occur at any firm.

It's not about what OP gains directly but indirectly. We (i.e. associates) are in a worse position (whether negotiating for severance, job security, making lateral moves, etc.) when silence is the default. There's a reason it's "stealth" and it's not to help the employee, even if it's spun that way.

That said I feel anon for being worried about outing if it's a one off firing and a future firm is going to link the statement back to him/her. Still think it should be publicized but I'm sympathetic.

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.