Layoff Predictions Forum

[nealric]

The top tier is of course more insulated, though during the great recession there were various accusations of stealth layoffs (i.e. trumped up performance review issues as an excuse to let people go). The thing with cutting bonuses is it does nothing to conserve cash now. For firms worried about a sudden revenue shock, that's a bigger consideration.

There were also open layoffs, most conspicuously at Latham, but at other "top-tier" firms as well.

neal is right about bonuses. I don't think any firm's even taking bonuses into consideration right now - December 2020's so far down the pike. If it was currently November 2020, sure, firms might look ahead and consider axing bonuses in lieu of conducting layoffs or implementing salary cuts. But, it's only March.

Absolutely, but the open layoffs tended to be more focused on juniors and staff. Latham was particularly infamous for cutting a huge portion of their first years almost immediately after they started. They were also conspicuous within the v20 for doing open layoffs. A lot of it boils down to leverage. Highly leveraged firms tend to hire like crazy in good times and fire like crazy in the bad. Low leverage firms are hardly immune, but they tend to be a bit more judicious.

The stealth layoffs seemed to be more of a mid/senior associate thing, which makes sense because they are a lot less fungible. Even partners with practices that were deep-sixed by the recession got stealthed.

[objctnyrhnr]

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

You’re right, genius. The ones who get laid off in lit are JUST AS LIKELY to bill 2400 Year in and out and write winning dispositive brief after winning dispositive brief, as they are to bill 1600 hours and get stuck doing doc review every other assignment because partners don’t trust them with anything complex. Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

Interesting that you work at a firm with an inverse bell curve where associates only work either 1600 hours doing doc review or 2400 hours writing gold star briefs.

For all the other firms with a slightly different distribution and the random chance factors that you do acknowledge can play a role, I’m with LaLeLuLiLo, especially during an economic downturn.

Nah I didn’t say that was my firm. That said, My firm stealth pushes junior ish associates who just aren’t on the level of their peers. Partners don’t go back to them with work and their hours suffer. I’ve worked with some and they were okay, but just not nearly as good as a number of others.

The reality is that there are high performers, mid performers, and low performers—in law, and any other profession. Not everybody’s the same, even if they get paid close to the same 90% of the calendar years.

Why wouldn’t a firm that unfortunately must do layoffs due to circumstances go (in the aggregate of course, notwithstanding bad luck anomalies) for the lowest tier first and the highest tier last, in deciding who to cut? I mean how does doing anything else make any sense?

Im just baffled that there’s a difference of opinion on this.

Because there is no objective metric. Low hours doesn’t mean someone is bad, mid hours doesnt mean they’re middling and high hours doesn’t mean they’re good.

Especially later in your career, you’re more likely to get most of your work from just a few partners.

There are a ton of partner politics you’re ignoring as well.

Say Associate A averages 1800 hours and Associate B averages 2000. They both get good reviews. But Associate A primarily works with one partner and that partner is an absolute bulldog and goes to bat for their people. Associate B gets work from a broader base of partners and is well liked, but isn’t all that close with any partners.

Associate B is more likely to get fired. They aren’t a “poor performer” compared to Associate A at all.

I’ve seen plenty of good attorneys pushed out and plenty of bad ones stay. These aren’t fringe cases - this is the reality of working at a firm. There is no objective metric that lets a firm go down a list and choose people to be fired.

I agree 100%. User above thinking there’s a clear way to cut the “low performers” seems like they’re a junior associate just getting hang of the game.

There are so many ways to cut the cake. First, if someone bills a lot but working with them feels like slamming your head against a bed of nails, while working with someone else is more comfortable despite their lower bill numbers, I’d go for the more comfortable option. Second, I can’t tell you how many associates I’ve worked with that bill 2300+ but do it because they’re inefficient and/or they get boring, easy work like doc review. I rather take someone who is efficient and reliable but bills 2100 hours than someone inefficient and less reliable (worries me when I assign more than doc review) billing 2250 Or even 2300. Third, you gotta play your group’s strengths. If you’re a litigation and counseling group, maybe litigation is a bit slow right now and so you’re relying more on counseling. But you know your bread and butter work is litigation. If the one or two associates in your group who are rockstars in litigation happen to slow down a bit during this time whereas the associates that avoid litigation and love counseling get a boost in hours, no reasonable manager would cut the litigators.

There are just too many factors you can point to here to say this person is a “low performer” and the other is a “high performer.”

Some lawyers are better than others at the important skills in a certain group (e.g., writing in lit). Some lawyers have pretty universally acknowledged reps for being weaker than their peers at pretty fundamental skills (e.g., finding the best cases). I am finding it very difficult to believe that my group is the only one where this is true.

Also, I am far from a junior. I supervise juniors who are good and juniors who are okay and occasionally juniors who just aren’t getting it (that’s pretty rare though maybe only happened once...and lo and behold I recently found out that person got stealthed some months back).

But my opinions on other associates’ work product arent specific to me—the Other mid/seniors in my group share these opinions; I know because it’s been discussed. If (and it’s a big if) my group starts cutting, the ones who are regarded as okay will go before the ones who are regarded as top notch, no question.

Again, I am really shocked that it seems I have the minority viewpoint on this. I totally get that there’s luck and politics and all that. But overall if and when heaven forbid 10% of (junior/mid) associates need to go, it won’t be arbitrary—the ones regarded as weaker will typically go first, no question.

[veers]

I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks the only associates who get laid off “perform worse” than their peers. That’s such a bad take I don’t even know where to begin.

You’re right, genius. The ones who get laid off in lit are JUST AS LIKELY to bill 2400 Year in and out and write winning dispositive brief after winning dispositive brief, as they are to bill 1600 hours and get stuck doing doc review every other assignment because partners don’t trust them with anything complex. Obviously that doesn’t make any sense.

Interesting that you work at a firm with an inverse bell curve where associates only work either 1600 hours doing doc review or 2400 hours writing gold star briefs.

For all the other firms with a slightly different distribution and the random chance factors that you do acknowledge can play a role, I’m with LaLeLuLiLo, especially during an economic downturn.

Nah I didn’t say that was my firm. That said, My firm stealth pushes junior ish associates who just aren’t on the level of their peers. Partners don’t go back to them with work and their hours suffer. I’ve worked with some and they were okay, but just not nearly as good as a number of others.

The reality is that there are high performers, mid performers, and low performers—in law, and any other profession. Not everybody’s the same, even if they get paid close to the same 90% of the calendar years.

Why wouldn’t a firm that unfortunately must do layoffs due to circumstances go (in the aggregate of course, notwithstanding bad luck anomalies) for the lowest tier first and the highest tier last, in deciding who to cut? I mean how does doing anything else make any sense?

Im just baffled that there’s a difference of opinion on this.

Because there is no objective metric. Low hours doesn’t mean someone is bad, mid hours doesnt mean they’re middling and high hours doesn’t mean they’re good.

Especially later in your career, you’re more likely to get most of your work from just a few partners.

There are a ton of partner politics you’re ignoring as well.

Say Associate A averages 1800 hours and Associate B averages 2000. They both get good reviews. But Associate A primarily works with one partner and that partner is an absolute bulldog and goes to bat for their people. Associate B gets work from a broader base of partners and is well liked, but isn’t all that close with any partners.

Associate B is more likely to get fired. They aren’t a “poor performer” compared to Associate A at all.

I’ve seen plenty of good attorneys pushed out and plenty of bad ones stay. These aren’t fringe cases - this is the reality of working at a firm. There is no objective metric that lets a firm go down a list and choose people to be fired.

I agree 100%. User above thinking there’s a clear way to cut the “low performers” seems like they’re a junior associate just getting hang of the game.

There are so many ways to cut the cake. First, if someone bills a lot but working with them feels like slamming your head against a bed of nails, while working with someone else is more comfortable despite their lower bill numbers, I’d go for the more comfortable option. Second, I can’t tell you how many associates I’ve worked with that bill 2300+ but do it because they’re inefficient and/or they get boring, easy work like doc review. I rather take someone who is efficient and reliable but bills 2100 hours than someone inefficient and less reliable (worries me when I assign more than doc review) billing 2250 Or even 2300. Third, you gotta play your group’s strengths. If you’re a litigation and counseling group, maybe litigation is a bit slow right now and so you’re relying more on counseling. But you know your bread and butter work is litigation. If the one or two associates in your group who are rockstars in litigation happen to slow down a bit during this time whereas the associates that avoid litigation and love counseling get a boost in hours, no reasonable manager would cut the litigators.

There are just too many factors you can point to here to say this person is a “low performer” and the other is a “high performer.”

Some lawyers are better than others at the important skills in a certain group (e.g., writing in lit). Some lawyers have pretty universally acknowledged reps for being weaker than their peers at pretty fundamental skills (e.g., finding the best cases). I am finding it very difficult to believe that my group is the only one where this is true.

Also, I am far from a junior. I supervise juniors who are good and juniors who are okay and occasionally juniors who just aren’t getting it (that’s pretty rare though maybe only happened once...and lo and behold I recently found out that person got stealthed some months back).

But my opinions on other associates’ work product arent specific to me—the Other mid/seniors in my group share these opinions; I know because it’s been discussed. If (and it’s a big if) my group starts cutting, the ones who are regarded as okay will go before the ones who are regarded as top notch, no question.

Again, I am really shocked that it seems I have the minority viewpoint on this. I totally get that there’s luck and politics and all that. But overall if and when heaven forbid 10% of (junior/mid) associates need to go, it won’t be arbitrary—the ones regarded as weaker will typically go first, no question.

Completely agree with this. The mid/senior associates regularly discuss the competence level of various juniors. Many are atrocious to the point where you question how they could even have graduated law school. Others seem destined for career-long mediocrity. And some are actually half decent, to the point where in a pinch you could submit unreviewed work product from them directly to a client without a nuclear meltdown.

The partners are no less informed as to the relative competence of different associates, and layoffs (be they stealth or otherwise) unquestionably fall vastly more heavily on the below average and down crew, who were likely to eventually be shown the door in any event. The idea that layoffs are somehow done at random, and the superstars are just as likely to get the ax as the clinically incompetent, is completely insane. Hours also serve as a good proxy here - in normal times good associates are going to be pretty busy (and snatched up right away when they have availability), while poor associates tend to have choppier hours and less overall utilization. The identity of good associates and bad associates isn't some state secret, it is the type of thing that everyone in the group pretty much knows.

[nixy]

No one's saying the superstars are as likely to get cut as the clinically incompetent. I think the argument is more that many many many associates - ones who will be subject to layoffs - fall into the mushy middle where the difference isn't going to be ability as much as it is relationships with partners and what's happening in which practice groups. (Anyone who ever graded law review write-ons knows that this is exactly the kind of distribution you get - very clear top and bottom, lots of hard to distinguish middle.) Under normal circumstances, most of the mushy middle are perfectly good performers who wouldn't be at risk, so justifying cutting people under these not normal circumstances on the grounds that "well, they're the weaker perfomers" doesn't quite seem fair.

And fit is a thing too - there are people who struggle at one firm who succeed at another due to personality/cultural differences. (You could certainly argue that someone who struggles due to personality differences is a low performer within the context of a given firm, but it doesn't mean they're objectively bad lawyers in all contexts.)

Or, to go back to this:

the obvious caveats that you could get stuck in a group with no work (out of your control), have a partner-related issue (assume out of your control for the sake of argument), an unfair sex/race bias type issue, or some other bad luck related problems

- I think to people who never experience these issues, they look a lot rarer than they are, and there's a little too much reliance on the idea that layoffs can be handled based on some kind of objective measure of merit.

[objctnyrhnr]

Nah I didn’t say that was my firm. That said, My firm stealth pushes junior ish associates who just aren’t on the level of their peers. Partners don’t go back to them with work and their hours suffer. I’ve worked with some and they were okay, but just not nearly as good as a number of others.

The reality is that there are high performers, mid performers, and low performers—in law, and any other profession. Not everybody’s the same, even if they get paid close to the same 90% of the calendar years.

Why wouldn’t a firm that unfortunately must do layoffs due to circumstances go (in the aggregate of course, notwithstanding bad luck anomalies) for the lowest tier first and the highest tier last, in deciding who to cut? I mean how does doing anything else make any sense?

Im just baffled that there’s a difference of opinion on this.

Because there is no objective metric. Low hours doesn’t mean someone is bad, mid hours doesnt mean they’re middling and high hours doesn’t mean they’re good.

Especially later in your career, you’re more likely to get most of your work from just a few partners.

There are a ton of partner politics you’re ignoring as well.

Say Associate A averages 1800 hours and Associate B averages 2000. They both get good reviews. But Associate A primarily works with one partner and that partner is an absolute bulldog and goes to bat for their people. Associate B gets work from a broader base of partners and is well liked, but isn’t all that close with any partners.

Associate B is more likely to get fired. They aren’t a “poor performer” compared to Associate A at all.

I’ve seen plenty of good attorneys pushed out and plenty of bad ones stay. These aren’t fringe cases - this is the reality of working at a firm. There is no objective metric that lets a firm go down a list and choose people to be fired.

I agree 100%. User above thinking there’s a clear way to cut the “low performers” seems like they’re a junior associate just getting hang of the game.

There are so many ways to cut the cake. First, if someone bills a lot but working with them feels like slamming your head against a bed of nails, while working with someone else is more comfortable despite their lower bill numbers, I’d go for the more comfortable option. Second, I can’t tell you how many associates I’ve worked with that bill 2300+ but do it because they’re inefficient and/or they get boring, easy work like doc review. I rather take someone who is efficient and reliable but bills 2100 hours than someone inefficient and less reliable (worries me when I assign more than doc review) billing 2250 Or even 2300. Third, you gotta play your group’s strengths. If you’re a litigation and counseling group, maybe litigation is a bit slow right now and so you’re relying more on counseling. But you know your bread and butter work is litigation. If the one or two associates in your group who are rockstars in litigation happen to slow down a bit during this time whereas the associates that avoid litigation and love counseling get a boost in hours, no reasonable manager would cut the litigators.

There are just too many factors you can point to here to say this person is a “low performer” and the other is a “high performer.”

Some lawyers are better than others at the important skills in a certain group (e.g., writing in lit). Some lawyers have pretty universally acknowledged reps for being weaker than their peers at pretty fundamental skills (e.g., finding the best cases). I am finding it very difficult to believe that my group is the only one where this is true.

Also, I am far from a junior. I supervise juniors who are good and juniors who are okay and occasionally juniors who just aren’t getting it (that’s pretty rare though maybe only happened once...and lo and behold I recently found out that person got stealthed some months back).

But my opinions on other associates’ work product arent specific to me—the Other mid/seniors in my group share these opinions; I know because it’s been discussed. If (and it’s a big if) my group starts cutting, the ones who are regarded as okay will go before the ones who are regarded as top notch, no question.

Again, I am really shocked that it seems I have the minority viewpoint on this. I totally get that there’s luck and politics and all that. But overall if and when heaven forbid 10% of (junior/mid) associates need to go, it won’t be arbitrary—the ones regarded as weaker will typically go first, no question.

Completely agree with this. The mid/senior associates regularly discuss the competence level of various juniors. Many are atrocious to the point where you question how they could even have graduated law school. Others seem destined for career-long mediocrity. And some are actually half decent, to the point where in a pinch you could submit unreviewed work product from them directly to a client without a nuclear meltdown.

The partners are no less informed as to the relative competence of different associates, and layoffs (be they stealth or otherwise) unquestionably fall vastly more heavily on the below average and down crew, who were likely to eventually be shown the door in any event. The idea that layoffs are somehow done at random, and the superstars are just as likely to get the ax as the clinically incompetent, is completely insane. Hours also serve as a good proxy here - in normal times good associates are going to be pretty busy (and snatched up right away when they have availability), while poor associates tend to have choppier hours and less overall utilization. The identity of good associates and bad associates isn't some state secret, it is the type of thing that everyone in the group pretty much knows.

[/quote]

Okay good so I’m not crazy.

I see the argument that you might get screwed by having a relationship with the wrong partner, and the like, as more the exception than the rule. I also think that very senior attorneys could get pushed out in spite of a high degree of skill because for whatever reason outside of their control, the group isn’t in a spot to promote them.

But if and when a Latham or whatever does significant cuts of like 2-4th years due to a recession? Yeah—those names didn’t get pulled out of a hat. For better or for worse, those people (In a given suffering group) are generally (noting there will be the occasional exception) getting selected because there’s a consensus that they are weaker than their peers...or at the VERY least that they are not stronger than their peers. There’s just no common-sense way around this.

[nixy]

For better or for worse, those people (In a given suffering group) are generally (noting there will be the occasional exception) getting selected because there’s a consensus that they are weaker than their peers...or at the VERY least that they are not stronger than their peers. There’s just no common-sense way around this.

You get that there's a pretty big difference between the two bolded descriptions, right? There's a difference between cutting dead wood and only protecting the superstars.

[nealric]

But if and when a Latham or whatever does significant cuts of like 2-4th years due to a recession? Yeah—those names didn’t get pulled out of a hat. For better or for worse, those people (In a given suffering group) are generally (noting there will be the occasional exception) getting selected because there’s a consensus that they are weaker than their peers...or at the VERY least that they are not stronger than their peers. There’s just no common-sense way around this.

Latham fired people who had been working for a few weeks during the recession. Those folks basically got pulled out of a hat. There's also the practice group factor. A mediocre bankruptcy associate might get to stay around while a good M&A associate might get the boot.

[Anonymous User]

Baker Donelson furloughing and cutting salaries "temporarily".

[LaLiLuLeLo]

You’re conflating how firings normally work in biglaw, where yeah, absent other circumstances, the low performers are usually shown the door and how they work in mass layoffs.

About 6,000 biglaw attorneys were laid off in 2009 alone. You can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me they were all just weaker or low performers. And if you do, well, dare I say...that’s pretty frickin’ boomer.

I think it’s a very toxic mentality to think if you’ve been laid off you just aren’t as good as the ones that didn’t.

[Anonymous User]

Concerned mid-level lit associate here. I've heard from in-house counsel at a large client that they are being pressured to drastically cut lit spend for next two quarters due to COVID-19 closures' impact on revenue. So, not to alarm folks, but litigation is far from safe.

Has anyone heard what severance may look like or what happened in 2009?

Good luck everyone, dark times.

[Anonymous User]

Concerned mid-level lit associate here. I've heard from in-house counsel at a large client that they are being pressured to drastically cut lit spend for next two quarters due to COVID-19 closures' impact on revenue. So, not to alarm folks, but litigation is far from safe.

Has anyone heard what severance may look like or what happened in 2009?

Good luck everyone, dark times.

Something similar re a big client. Supervisors delivered the news calmly, didn’t use the word “drastically,” but made it clear to up use of paralegals and that non-essential research and projects would be scaled back because client is belt tightening.

[Anonymous User]

Concerned mid-level lit associate here. I've heard from in-house counsel at a large client that they are being pressured to drastically cut lit spend for next two quarters due to COVID-19 closures' impact on revenue. So, not to alarm folks, but litigation is far from safe.

Has anyone heard what severance may look like or what happened in 2009?

Good luck everyone, dark times.

Something similar re a big client. Supervisors delivered the news calmly, didn’t use the word “drastically,” but made it clear to up use of paralegals and that non-essential research and projects would be scaled back because client is belt tightening.

Litigation is safer than corporate, but not safe, particularly with court shutdowns and client cutbacks. If you look back at the 09-12 timeframe or so, everyone was telling people lit was better off than corp, and that's true (at the time). But it generally takes a little bit for litigation and investigations inevitably generated by crises to pick up to the point where you can feel safe. Unlike corp, lit won't go to zero, but it may go to 50% for a while.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard anything from Kramer Levin NY

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard anything from Kramer Levin NY

Firm has informed no plans of layoffs or salary cuts as of yet.

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

Nah I didn’t say that was my firm. That said, My firm stealth pushes junior ish associates who just aren’t on the level of their peers. Partners don’t go back to them with work and their hours suffer. I’ve worked with some and they were okay, but just not nearly as good as a number of others.

The reality is that there are high performers, mid performers, and low performers—in law, and any other profession. Not everybody’s the same, even if they get paid close to the same 90% of the calendar years.

Why wouldn’t a firm that unfortunately must do layoffs due to circumstances go (in the aggregate of course, notwithstanding bad luck anomalies) for the lowest tier first and the highest tier last, in deciding who to cut? I mean how does doing anything else make any sense?

Im just baffled that there’s a difference of opinion on this.

Because there is no objective metric. Low hours doesn’t mean someone is bad, mid hours doesnt mean they’re middling and high hours doesn’t mean they’re good.

Especially later in your career, you’re more likely to get most of your work from just a few partners.

There are a ton of partner politics you’re ignoring as well.

Say Associate A averages 1800 hours and Associate B averages 2000. They both get good reviews. But Associate A primarily works with one partner and that partner is an absolute bulldog and goes to bat for their people. Associate B gets work from a broader base of partners and is well liked, but isn’t all that close with any partners.

Associate B is more likely to get fired. They aren’t a “poor performer” compared to Associate A at all.

I’ve seen plenty of good attorneys pushed out and plenty of bad ones stay. These aren’t fringe cases - this is the reality of working at a firm. There is no objective metric that lets a firm go down a list and choose people to be fired.

I agree 100%. User above thinking there’s a clear way to cut the “low performers” seems like they’re a junior associate just getting hang of the game.

There are so many ways to cut the cake. First, if someone bills a lot but working with them feels like slamming your head against a bed of nails, while working with someone else is more comfortable despite their lower bill numbers, I’d go for the more comfortable option. Second, I can’t tell you how many associates I’ve worked with that bill 2300+ but do it because they’re inefficient and/or they get boring, easy work like doc review. I rather take someone who is efficient and reliable but bills 2100 hours than someone inefficient and less reliable (worries me when I assign more than doc review) billing 2250 Or even 2300. Third, you gotta play your group’s strengths. If you’re a litigation and counseling group, maybe litigation is a bit slow right now and so you’re relying more on counseling. But you know your bread and butter work is litigation. If the one or two associates in your group who are rockstars in litigation happen to slow down a bit during this time whereas the associates that avoid litigation and love counseling get a boost in hours, no reasonable manager would cut the litigators.

There are just too many factors you can point to here to say this person is a “low performer” and the other is a “high performer.”

Some lawyers are better than others at the important skills in a certain group (e.g., writing in lit). Some lawyers have pretty universally acknowledged reps for being weaker than their peers at pretty fundamental skills (e.g., finding the best cases). I am finding it very difficult to believe that my group is the only one where this is true.

Also, I am far from a junior. I supervise juniors who are good and juniors who are okay and occasionally juniors who just aren’t getting it (that’s pretty rare though maybe only happened once...and lo and behold I recently found out that person got stealthed some months back).

But my opinions on other associates’ work product arent specific to me—the Other mid/seniors in my group share these opinions; I know because it’s been discussed. If (and it’s a big if) my group starts cutting, the ones who are regarded as okay will go before the ones who are regarded as top notch, no question.

Again, I am really shocked that it seems I have the minority viewpoint on this. I totally get that there’s luck and politics and all that. But overall if and when heaven forbid 10% of (junior/mid) associates need to go, it won’t be arbitrary—the ones regarded as weaker will typically go first, no question.

Completely agree with this. The mid/senior associates regularly discuss the competence level of various juniors. Many are atrocious to the point where you question how they could even have graduated law school. Others seem destined for career-long mediocrity. And some are actually half decent, to the point where in a pinch you could submit unreviewed work product from them directly to a client without a nuclear meltdown.

The partners are no less informed as to the relative competence of different associates, and layoffs (be they stealth or otherwise) unquestionably fall vastly more heavily on the below average and down crew, who were likely to eventually be shown the door in any event. The idea that layoffs are somehow done at random, and the superstars are just as likely to get the ax as the clinically incompetent, is completely insane. Hours also serve as a good proxy here - in normal times good associates are going to be pretty busy (and snatched up right away when they have availability), while poor associates tend to have choppier hours and less overall utilization. The identity of good associates and bad associates isn't some state secret, it is the type of thing that everyone in the group pretty much knows.

Okay good so I’m not crazy.

I see the argument that you might get screwed by having a relationship with the wrong partner, and the like, as more the exception than the rule. I also think that very senior attorneys could get pushed out in spite of a high degree of skill because for whatever reason outside of their control, the group isn’t in a spot to promote them.

But if and when a Latham or whatever does significant cuts of like 2-4th years due to a recession? Yeah—those names didn’t get pulled out of a hat. For better or for worse, those people (In a given suffering group) are generally (noting there will be the occasional exception) getting selected because there’s a consensus that they are weaker than their peers...or at the VERY least that they are not stronger than their peers. There’s just no common-sense way around this.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with all of this. In my experience, partners may have some knowledge of who are the good or bad associates (<4 years) but also aren't working with those people day-to-day generally and may base their impressions on a small sample size of direct interactions. This is especially true in large NY firms with an army of junior associates. Senior associates and midlevels will know a lot more. Given that partners are making the decisions, they may base their decisions on idiosyncratic stuff, politics, personal impressions as much as actual work quality.

Also, junior associate work in most cases is more rote and commodified than midlevel and senior associate work. So it is hard to distinguish between, say, a 70th percentile performer and a 40th percentile performer. When the work is higher-stakes for more senior associates, it is easier to tell.

[objctnyrhnr]

So maybe the common ground here is, then, that if somebody gets laid off, they probably weren’t one of the very very good associates...but the likelihood that they were considered relatively decent (ie the “mushy middle” as one poster put it) is comparable to the likelihood that they were considered relatively weak.

On a related note, though, I always supposed that (whether they’re ultimately somewhat accurate in some objective sense or not) the point of formal evals was to give the firms cover as to, and perhaps a plan for, a scenario in which the group might need to substantially tighten the belt. Just seems like (at least at my firm) evals take way too much of everybody’s time to do if there isn’t some significant business purpose for completing them, such as this one.

[nixy]

You’re conflating how firings normally work in biglaw, where yeah, absent other circumstances, the low performers are usually shown the door and how they work in mass layoffs.

About 6,000 biglaw attorneys were laid off in 2009 alone. You can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me they were all just weaker or low performers. And if you do, well, dare I say...that’s pretty frickin’ boomer.

I think it’s a very toxic mentality to think if you’ve been laid off you just aren’t as good as the ones that didn’t.

I agree with this.

[TigerIsBack]

Sorry I'm coming into this thread a bit late, but how soon/likely do people think pay cuts and layoffs will make it to the v50 firms? It's a small sample size, but I'm a general corp/m&a associate and have been slammed since we started working from home a couple weeks ago.

Do we think the effects will just take a bit longer to hit? As someone that hasn't been through a downturn, is there anything you can do to avoid being one of the people that gets the axe?

[asmde]

Sorry I'm coming into this thread a bit late, but how soon/likely do people think pay cuts and layoffs will make it to the v50 firms? It's a small sample size, but I'm a general corp/m&a associate and have been slammed since we started working from home a couple weeks ago.

Do we think the effects will just take a bit longer to hit? As someone that hasn't been through a downturn, is there anything you can do to avoid being one of the people that gets the axe?

I'm a 0L but work at an investment bank so I feel like I can comment on this. My bank is predicting a large market rebound starting at the end of Q2 and continuing into 2021, which makes me skeptical that massive layoffs will occur so long as your firm was healthy going into the pandemic. Based on the fact that you've been slammed I would guess that your firm is busy enough to weather the storm for the next couple of months without a significant reduction in headcount. Firms like CWT were probably already facing financial pressures before the pandemic started and the further decline in business pushed them over the edge.

[nealric]

Sorry I'm coming into this thread a bit late, but how soon/likely do people think pay cuts and layoffs will make it to the v50 firms? It's a small sample size, but I'm a general corp/m&a associate and have been slammed since we started working from home a couple weeks ago.

Do we think the effects will just take a bit longer to hit? As someone that hasn't been through a downturn, is there anything you can do to avoid being one of the people that gets the axe?

I'm a 0L but work at an investment bank so I feel like I can comment on this. My bank is predicting a large market rebound starting at the end of Q2 and continuing into 2021, which makes me skeptical that massive layoffs will occur so long as your firm was healthy going into the pandemic. Based on the fact that you've been slammed I would guess that your firm is busy enough to weather the storm for the next couple of months without a significant reduction in headcount. Firms like CWT were probably already facing financial pressures before the pandemic started and the further decline in business pushed them over the edge.

I'd also note that CWT started layoffs in early 08 before the financial crisis had even started (though the subprime mortgage crisis was apparent). They are highly leveraged and have relatively relaxed recruiting standards for biglaw, so they tend to be the first to drop people. It's built into their business model to some extent.

The real question now from a firm layoff standpoint is whether the health crisis becomes a financial crisis. If so, we won't see the hoped for market rebound in Q2 and it will take a lot longer for deal flow to normalize.

[Trout et al]

Curtis Mallet following CWT with 25% associate pay cuts

[jrose55]

Fross Zelnick (IP boutique) also cut salaries:

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/another ... -downturn/

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

Fross Zelnick (IP boutique) also cut salaries:

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/another ... -downturn/

Arent Fox is also cutting salaries: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/lawyers ... 0-percent/

I think this short-term crisis is going to reveal some differences between firms that are ostensibly on the 190 scale. I can't imagine a firm like Cravath ever cutting salaries, even temporarily, but a lot of firms have very different economics than the V10 NY firms. In a way I think this makes sense--it seems strange for firms with $1.5m PPP paying the same as $5m PPP.

[Joachim2017]

Fross Zelnick (IP boutique) also cut salaries:

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/another ... -downturn/

Arent Fox is also cutting salaries: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/lawyers ... 0-percent/

I think this short-term crisis is going to reveal some differences between firms that are ostensibly on the 190 scale. I can't imagine a firm like Cravath ever cutting salaries, even temporarily, but a lot of firms have very different economics than the V10 NY firms. In a way I think this makes sense--it seems strange for firms with $1.5m PPP paying the same as $5m PPP.

From an economic perspective, this was always a weird quirk about law firm pay.

[Wild Card]

Fross Zelnick (IP boutique) also cut salaries:

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/another ... -downturn/

Arent Fox is also cutting salaries: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/04/lawyers ... 0-percent/

TYFT. ATL's clickbait trash titles are blurring together.