Top Law Schools

Seyfarth just laid off 40 attorneys, primarily senior associates and non-equity partners.

"Lean" Six Sigma indeed.

LOL at a firm who gets the majority of its associates from dozens of laterals conducting layoffs.

The ABL article is totally right. Some firms just should not have raised salaries, as they could not afford it.

I recently lateraled out of a firm in the AmLaw 50-100 in RPL. There were three noticeable differences after the firm matched Cravath (though it was one of the last firms to match):

1. The pressure on associates to bill as much as possible increased significantly. First years in any given practice group who were slow were getting staffed on matters in other groups (a practice that the firm had not previously done). Midlevels were getting heat if they weren't finding their own work.

2. Although that firm has not [yet] started to lay off people in masse, the firm employs a model where associates are not automatically promoted from one year to the next. While you are "presumed" to be promoted from some years to other years, there are certain gate years. In years past, everyone who should have been promoted was promoted at non-gate years, while some at gate years were held back if they didn't hit their hours or for poor performance. This past year, many associates were held back at gate years even if they hit their hours and several associates were reportedly held back at non-gate years for not hitting their hours.

3. Many benefits changed -- hard benefits (e.g. higher healthcare premiums) and soft benefits (e.g. coffee machines taken away, meal allowances decreased, etc).

My new firm, which is in the AmLaw 10 for RPL, has changed nothing since the raises. They've actually improved many soft benefits for associates.

Anonymous User wrote:3. Many benefits changed -- hard benefits (e.g. higher healthcare premiums) and soft benefits (e.g. coffee machines taken away, meal allowances decreased, etc).

seems counter-productive

Dang things are looking super unsettling. I'd trade $20K for job security.

star fox wrote:Dang things are looking super unsettling. I'd trade $20K for job security.

Very thankful I work at one of the "Super Rich" firms. Time for another raise to segment the market! That being said, hate to see layoffs. Good luck to all those affected.

KM2016 wrote:

star fox wrote:Dang things are looking super unsettling. I'd trade $20K for job security.

Very thankful I work at one of the "Super Rich" firms. Time for another raise to segment the market! That being said, hate to see layoffs. Good luck to all those affected.

What was the point of this post?

runinthefront wrote:

KM2016 wrote:

star fox wrote:Dang things are looking super unsettling. I'd trade $20K for job security.

Very thankful I work at one of the "Super Rich" firms. Time for another raise to segment the market! That being said, hate to see layoffs. Good luck to all those affected.

What was the point of this post?

Compensation for crippling anxiety

Super rich firms don't get those super rich RPL by keeping around people who don't pull their weight.

Desert Fox wrote:Super rich firms don't get those super rich RPL by keeping around people who don't pull their weight.

Says the premier mentor on this fora on how to be a successful long-term Biglaw barnacle.

First Seyfarth, now Dechert.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/dechert- ... he-future/

KM2016 wrote:First Seyfarth, now Dechert.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/dechert- ... he-future/

Laying off first years too. Isnt that Latham territory?

This is worse than latham territory because its not like the legal industry is imploding. Total shit move.

There's a reason I titled this thread "2017 Layoffs" instead of "Seyfarth Layoffs" ... it's going to be a long 6 months folks.

Npret wrote:

KM2016 wrote:First Seyfarth, now Dechert.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/dechert- ... he-future/

Laying off first years too. Isnt that Latham territory?

I've talked with multiple senior associates/junior partners and -anecdotally- they are overall not hopeful of the young talent that has been coming in the doors. They don't think they're cut out for client service - sloppy work and unresponsiveness to client/their demands. With higher pay comes higher expectations.

Anyone has any idea how "slow" the first years were? Ytd hours of what? 500? 300?

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone has any idea how "slow" the first years were? Ytd hours of what? 500? 300?

Varies. In all likelihood, close to 0 for a few months. You get stealthed. It's also not really a big deal - I know that sounds bad, but what I'm saying is that it's not indicative of future layoffs.

Dechert's got the same 5or 6 people making these major hiring decisions, and policy committee or not, it's the same people. They have never guessed right, which is why they have 100 person summer classes, and 20 the next. These people are 70, in terrible shape and aren't supposed to work more than 3 or 4 days a week.

It's not indicative of an industry wide problem. It's indicative of the painful and costly transition of moving from Alzheimer's Stage 2 to Alzheimer's Stage 3. As they become increasingly senile, they guess on an increasingly big scale. I know this sounds like one is trivializing a painful day for many people, but the root of the problem isn't really economic. In all honesty, it could be as simple as one old fella inadvertently reading a newspaper from 1980 when they decided to bring in 6 laterals last year.

Research the firm's economic history, and ask yourself this: when have they ever guessed right? And are the same people who guessed wrong 10 years ago still guessing wrong today with no new people on the board? If the answer is yes and yes, we know the solution. Avoid for another 5 years - let the current board wither away and die out, and the problem will be solved.

Paul Hastings is laying off anyone that isn't on track for over 2000 hours. I've heard that first years are safe, but everyone else is on the bubble. They axed 4 of counsels in my department.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone has any idea how "slow" the first years were? Ytd hours of what? 500? 300?

Varies. In all likelihood, close to 0 for a few months. You get stealthed. It's also not really a big deal - I know that sounds bad, but what I'm saying is that it's not indicative of future layoffs.

Dechert's got the same 5or 6 people making these major hiring decisions, and policy committee or not, it's the same people. They have never guessed right, which is why they have 100 person summer classes, and 20 the next. These people are 70, in terrible shape and aren't supposed to work more than 3 or 4 days a week.

It's not indicative of an industry wide problem. It's indicative of the painful and costly transition of moving from Alzheimer's Stage 2 to Alzheimer's Stage 3. As they become increasingly senile, they guess on an increasingly big scale. I know this sounds like one is trivializing a painful day for many people, but the root of the problem isn't really economic. In all honesty, it could be as simple as one old fella inadvertently reading a newspaper from 1980 when they decided to bring in 6 laterals last year.

Research the firm's economic history, and ask yourself this: when have they ever guessed right? And are the same people who guessed wrong 10 years ago still guessing wrong today with no new people on the board? If the answer is yes and yes, we know the solution. Avoid for another 5 years - let the current board wither away and die out, and the problem will be solved.

And how do you know this? I think youre probably wrong. I think there is overcapacity across the board. We may see more layoffs.

spyke123 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone has any idea how "slow" the first years were? Ytd hours of what? 500? 300?

Varies. In all likelihood, close to 0 for a few months. You get stealthed. It's also not really a big deal - I know that sounds bad, but what I'm saying is that it's not indicative of future layoffs.

Dechert's got the same 5or 6 people making these major hiring decisions, and policy committee or not, it's the same people. They have never guessed right, which is why they have 100 person summer classes, and 20 the next. These people are 70, in terrible shape and aren't supposed to work more than 3 or 4 days a week.

It's not indicative of an industry wide problem. It's indicative of the painful and costly transition of moving from Alzheimer's Stage 2 to Alzheimer's Stage 3. As they become increasingly senile, they guess on an increasingly big scale. I know this sounds like one is trivializing a painful day for many people, but the root of the problem isn't really economic. In all honesty, it could be as simple as one old fella inadvertently reading a newspaper from 1980 when they decided to bring in 6 laterals last year.

Research the firm's economic history, and ask yourself this: when have they ever guessed right? And are the same people who guessed wrong 10 years ago still guessing wrong today with no new people on the board? If the answer is yes and yes, we know the solution. Avoid for another 5 years - let the current board wither away and die out, and the problem will be solved.

And how do you know this? I think youre probably wrong. I think there is overcapacity across the board. We may see more layoffs.

Because I was a first year laid off at Dechert, and no others laid off at Dechert.

The process is this:

1.) You have no work when you start
2.) Any typo becomes a huge deal
3.) You get stealthed.
4.) You're put in a situation where you create cause.
5.) You're let go for cause.
6.) If you make no mistake, one is created.
7.) If Dechert messes up creating cause, it's financial.

It may change now, but eventually you get work with the intention of finding some mistake to then use as cause for not getting you busy. The goal is to break down your confidence so you won't want anyone to know, and won't leak it.

In my case, I got busy at the end because I was thrown on all nighters on assignments i was never even told anything about because "there was no time". I saw it as a chance to get busy so knocked them out without a mistake. At that point, one was invented. The issue was the partner didn't know what work I did so brought up a bad typo about filing something under the wrong party on a matter I was never on. When I brought that up, I was told the conversation never happened.

Anyone in this situation knows that it's only financial if Dechert failed to create cause, which generally requires you to do a good job and someone above you to have done a bad one. Once you're going to be let go, you may get work but it's not work-work. You're just supposed to screw one thing up so there's a paper trail.

Without getting too specific, I had been sent a spreadsheet to work from and found out at about 4 AM everything on the spreadsheet sent to me was incorrect and and spent all night changing it to send out a correct final product. In retrospect, I'm almost positive someone else was doing the same assignment and I was sent the faulty spreadsheet under the assumption I'd email the partner a faulty final product as expected that no one was ever going to see. I don't think they expected me to recognize the filing #'s was wrong and spend 12 hours correcting a 3000-entry long spreadsheet.

About a week later, I was let go. They overhire every year, and there's a process. It all seemed very mechanical, except for the partner confusing mistakes - I think one first year was supposed to blamed for A, and another for B. Without cause, you're told it's financial, which they will generally avoid admitting at all cost. "Financial" basically means whoever was let go didn't mess up, which probably means a partner made a mistake because this veers from the protocol, which is to make sure there's a paper trail of at least one screw up.

If the first year's confidence is adequately shattered, they should feel like it's their fault and be grateful for even 2 weeks severance and will never tell a soul. A mess up is how people negotiate severance agreement, and call ATL. Mess ups are bad. When Dechert stealths first years, the game plan is always to completely break them. Whoever was told to fire this first year is probably in hot water themselves.

When you're the first year in this situation, and realize that went happen to you happened to someone else A-Z, that shame subsides and you realize that there's a Dechert specific protocol on how to fire first years and it's never using the word "financial".