Layoff Predictions Forum

[Anonymous User]

So what happened in 2008 to lawyers who got let go from big law? Is it just a year of unemployment and then can go back into big law, or is it a whole generation of lawyers who never quite saw the same level of income again? I'm in-house right now (just recently left big law pretty junior) and if laid off I don't think I could get another job that pays 50% of my income to be honest. Might end up having to just leave the law in that case.

I'm not from the '08 class (I'm from a couple years later), but know a number of people who are. The answer is all over the map. A few made partner in biglaw, though they all seem to have done a 1 year deferment early on, in which they had to do a DA office fellowship. Or they got axed as a junior associate and had to find another firm to work for. I know a 08 grad who got axed as a biglaw 2nd year, went to a state gov't agency through a connection, left to a medium sized firm, then lateraled (also to mid law) and made partner shortly after.

I also know another 08 grad who was unemployed after getting let go as a 1st year, got into consulting, then went in house.

Long story short a lot of people from that year had to hustle, and the outcomes depended on a combo of luck+the opportunities they were able to find.

[Anonymous User]

What on earth is the rationale for denying website time? If anything it seems mutually beneficial to keep available as long as possible for the same reason firms give cold offers.

I was part of a stealth layoff at my first firm along with approximately 25% or my class and got very little website time at the beginning (like less than a month). They said they'd look at extending website time as the month came to an end depending on where I was in the replacement job search (I eventually asked for a couple extra weeks and got it). The stated rationale is to give us motivation to move on, but I think another part of it is that some firms (or partners) just don't care about their associates at all and can't be bothered to do anything that doesn't benefit them personally. In fact, some of the partners acted almost vindictive towards those of us leaving for some reason. I have no idea why, except that some people are just wired that way.

[legalpotato]

What on earth is the rationale for denying website time? If anything it seems mutually beneficial to keep available as long as possible for the same reason firms give cold offers.

I was part of a stealth layoff at my first firm along with approximately 25% or my class and got very little website time at the beginning (like less than a month). They said they'd look at extending website time as the month came to an end depending on where I was in the replacement job search (I eventually asked for a couple extra weeks and got it). The stated rationale is to give us motivation to move on, but I think another part of it is that some firms (or partners) just don't care about their associates at all and can't be bothered to do anything that doesn't benefit them personally. In fact, some of the partners acted almost vindictive towards those of us leaving for some reason. I have no idea why, except that some people are just wired that way.

The bolded is exactly why we need to out these ppl and make them accountable to the market -- otherwise there is no incentive for them.

[nealric]

So what happened in 2008 to lawyers who got let go from big law? Is it just a year of unemployment and then can go back into big law, or is it a whole generation of lawyers who never quite saw the same level of income again? I'm in-house right now (just recently left big law pretty junior) and if laid off I don't think I could get another job that pays 50% of my income to be honest. Might end up having to just leave the law in that case.

2009 was really the layoff bloodbath. The stock market crashed in September of 2008, but I don't think the impact really hit home for law firms until they got to the end of the year and had zero work. I was interviewing for SA positions in September 2008 and vividly remember walking into a partner's office for an interview who had both hands on his face. Not sure what happened exactly, but apparently a big deal had blown up. This was +/- a few days after Lehman collapsed. Fortunately, I got my first offer before the scope of the crisis was really known, and firms made relatively normal numbers of SA offers my year. The next year was a bloodbath.

Anyhow, as you might expect, the range of outcomes among biglaw junior types was pretty wide. On one end, I know of someone who never really had much of a career of any kind after getting no-offered (no offer rates were 50%+ at many firms that year, even ones that were historically 100%). Another did the "learn to code" thing and left law after a year or two of unpaid internships and frustration. On the other hand, a lot of the folks who made it through were in high demand a few years later as there was a shortage of midlevels by 2013-14ish. I certainly benefited from that even though I ended up going in-house.

[Anonymous User]

So, I'm not going to Big Law this summer. I'm going to a midlaw firm in a Midwest state that I assume will probably get back to work before NYC. They're the biggest firm in their city. From what I can tell, they didn't no offer any 2009 summers (and they did have summers that year). How worried should I be?

[Anonymous User]

So, I'm not going to Big Law this summer. I'm going to a midlaw firm in a Midwest state that I assume will probably get back to work before NYC. They're the biggest firm in their city. From what I can tell, they didn't no offer any 2009 summers (and they did have summers that year). How worried should I be?

I think it's hard to tell generally, but especially hard to tell at this point. I was in a T30ish regional law school during the recession and the graduating classes (mostly 09-10) seemed like they got slammed. Some midlaw/regional firms cut all their SA classes, had layoffs, etc. Some even folded pretty quickly. I remember hearing that our OCI offer rate when from ~30% to below 10% for my class (not sure how accurate that was to be honest). Like others mentioned, the economic collapse happened in the fall of 08, so its effects weren't entirely felt until the spring/summer of 09 for a lot of firms.

[Anonymous User]

What on earth is the rationale for denying website time? If anything it seems mutually beneficial to keep available as long as possible for the same reason firms give cold offers.

I was part of a stealth layoff at my first firm along with approximately 25% or my class and got very little website time at the beginning (like less than a month). They said they'd look at extending website time as the month came to an end depending on where I was in the replacement job search (I eventually asked for a couple extra weeks and got it). The stated rationale is to give us motivation to move on, but I think another part of it is that some firms (or partners) just don't care about their associates at all and can't be bothered to do anything that doesn't benefit them personally. In fact, some of the partners acted almost vindictive towards those of us leaving for some reason. I have no idea why, except that some people are just wired that way.

The bolded is exactly why we need to out these ppl and make them accountable to the market -- otherwise there is no incentive for them.

I am the anon you're responding to. As much as I would've liked to go out guns blazing, absent a 2008-2009 type situation where all firms are doing it, there's just no incentive to do so. At the time, I was looking for another job so if ATL (which doens't even do much biglaw reporting these days anyway) publishes that firm XYZ conducted layoffs, everyone knows I'm part of that. I can't do it now, half a decade down the line, because it's not really news anymore (I realize it wasn't clear from my OP that I'm talking about old events).

In times of real distress where every firm is conducting layoffs, that's a bit different, because firms are likely to be much more understanding of people getting laid off. No one was faulting former Latham associates in 2010. Fair or not, in good times it's a scarlet letter, even though individual firms might have tough times during overall good economic years.

That being said, the firm I was at has gotten a bunch of negative press over the past few years and so anyone doing diligent research on them as a 1L/2L would know to stay away anyway.

[LSATWiz.com]

I don’t know how good of a proxy the market is of the legal economy but it’s up 20 percent on the week.

[2015_Splitter]

That being said, the firm I was at has gotten a bunch of negative press over the past few years and so anyone doing diligent research on them as a 1L/2L would know to stay away anyway.

So...Jones Day, cool...

[BansheeScream]

That being said, the firm I was at has gotten a bunch of negative press over the past few years and so anyone doing diligent research on them as a 1L/2L would know to stay away anyway.

So...Jones Day, cool...

I was thinking either JD or Cadwalader.

[LSATWiz.com]

I mean the pandemic even with the lockdowns has created opportunities in two kinds of businesses so I'd imagine firms with these kinds of institutional clients would benefit more than they'd be hurt:

(1) Pharmaceutical companies - any companies that specialize in vaccines, lab-testing, or viral drugs have done well.

(2) Online platforms - platforms for online doctors, remote work (slack, zoom), and food delivery have all seen large stock gains and will likely report higher earnings.

I don't know if it's specific practice areas that will/won't be hurt so much as it's firms with specific types of client, but I only lasted in big law for a few years so may not know the inner workings of the industry all that well. However, there are still large mergers, acquisitions, and general growth taking place - just in companies specifically geared to operate during this kind of lockdown.

If I were in big law presently, my hope would be to work with partners who have clients in either (1) or (2). That's where the action will be until the lockdown is over.

[Anonymous User]

I just accepted an offer a few weeks ago at a V50 as an entry-level associate (have been working for another firm since graduation in May so I guess this is technically a lateral). All my checks are complete, but I was just waiting to get my start date before this Covid recession hit. Now it's just silence from the firm, and I'm frankly afraid to reach out to confirm...

Does anybody know how firms handled situations like this in '08 or have any predictions on what might happen? Are they more likely to rescind my offer since I didn't summer for them, or does this make my position more secure since I'm technically already offered?

[Wild Card]

That being said, the firm I was at has gotten a bunch of negative press over the past few years and so anyone doing diligent research on them as a 1L/2L would know to stay away anyway.

So...Jones Day, cool...

I was thinking either JD or Cadwalader.

?

Dechert is the only firm exposed for firing a bunch of first-year associates.

[BansheeScream]

That being said, the firm I was at has gotten a bunch of negative press over the past few years and so anyone doing diligent research on them as a 1L/2L would know to stay away anyway.

So...Jones Day, cool...

I was thinking either JD or Cadwalader.

?

Dechert is the only firm exposed for firing a bunch of first-year associates.

I took it as negative press in general not for firings but I guess Dechert could be thrown in there as well.

[objctnyrhnr]

That being said, the firm I was at has gotten a bunch of negative press over the past few years and so anyone doing diligent research on them as a 1L/2L would know to stay away anyway.

So...Jones Day, cool...

I was thinking either JD or Cadwalader.

?

Dechert is the only firm exposed for firing a bunch of first-year associates.

I took it as negative press in general not for firings but I guess Dechert could be thrown in there as well.

I doubt it’s jones day. Their black box Comp system could serve them to weather storms like this without much bad press and definitely without firing anybody. It’s not a big deal for a firm to go off market in associate Comp if they never purported to be on market to begin with, you know?

[Anonymous User]

That being said, the firm I was at has gotten a bunch of negative press over the past few years and so anyone doing diligent research on them as a 1L/2L would know to stay away anyway.

So...Jones Day, cool...

I was thinking either JD or Cadwalader.

?

Dechert is the only firm exposed for firing a bunch of first-year associates.

I took it as negative press in general not for firings but I guess Dechert could be thrown in there as well.

I doubt it’s jones day. Their black box Comp system could serve them to weather storms like this without much bad press and definitely without firing anybody. It’s not a big deal for a firm to go off market in associate Comp if they never purported to be on market to begin with, you know?

I can say that Dechert was pretty quick to lay off first years largely due to over hiring during a time there was not a recession. At the time, I didn’t really share my experience because I thought the problem was me. I did well in law school but didn’t have any evidence I wasn’t terrible at law. They also gave almost no website time which made it hard to bounce back. After moving in house and facilitating business growth to the point my salary doubled within my first year, it occurred to me the problem was probably them.

I would definitely not be surprised if they lay people off in anticipation of a recession. They tend to over-hire during bull markets so the mere suspicion of a bear market would likely freak them out. At the same time, I think they are too decent to lay people off without knowing if they have the virus. That may be wishful thinking though.

[Windjammer]

Wonder how many 3Ls with NY job offers will be let go because they can't get licensed this summer.

"*NEW March 27, 2020* COVID-19. UPDATE

The New York Court of Appeals today announced that the New York State Bar Examination will not be administered on July 28-29, 2020 as previously scheduled. Click here to read the press release from the Court of Appeals dated March 27, 2020."
Linked to press release says: "The Bar Examination will be rescheduled for dates in the fall, to be determined."
Source: https://www.nybarexam.org

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Wonder how many 3Ls with NY job offers will be let go because they can't get licensed this summer.

"*NEW March 27, 2020* COVID-19. UPDATE

The New York Court of Appeals today announced that the New York State Bar Examination will not be administered on July 28-29, 2020 as previously scheduled. Click here to read the press release from the Court of Appeals dated March 27, 2020."
Linked to press release says: "The Bar Examination will be rescheduled for dates in the fall, to be determined."
Source: https://www.nybarexam.org

Doesn’t NY actually license pretty late after the bar anyway because of C&F? Not sure why this would really affect jobs.

[Anonymous User]

Wonder how many 3Ls with NY job offers will be let go because they can't get licensed this summer.

"*NEW March 27, 2020* COVID-19. UPDATE

The New York Court of Appeals today announced that the New York State Bar Examination will not be administered on July 28-29, 2020 as previously scheduled. Click here to read the press release from the Court of Appeals dated March 27, 2020."
Linked to press release says: "The Bar Examination will be rescheduled for dates in the fall, to be determined."
Source: https://www.nybarexam.org

That would be incredibly cruel. They're talking about pushing the exam back from late July to late September, meaning that first years would be getting sworn in around March/April instead of January/February. I don't see how it makes *that* much of a difference to firms, given that pretty much all first years are working under the supervision of an attorney for the first several months anyways.

[nixy]

Yeah, I doubt it will make much difference in biglaw, except for the annoyance of scheduling around whatever the new exam date is (will the exam be early enough that people can take it before they start, or will it be late enough that firms want them to start and then take time off?). For the kinds of jobs where employers want people to be able to appear in court without supervision right away, it will likely be tougher. (But who knows what state things will be in by the fall anyway?)

[jarofsoup]

To the extent it matters, my firms focus has been getting its staff 100% remote. I don’t think they have thought about first years or summers.

[Pencilmoustaches]

....

No cash severance? That's just cruel. Need to out these firms on ATL to the extent able to do so without compromising identity.

You're aware that ATL is and has always been a front for legal recruiters, right? That's where the majority of their ad revenue always came from. Look at their bios, like Joe Patrice's bio. They're recruiters.

[Anonymous User]

Associate layoffs confirmed at Womble Bond Dickinson, with a 10% salary cut for those remaining.

[Anonymous User]

Poster who noted layoffs at the v100 earlier. Firm is NOT Womble, so those are separate
from what I reported earlier.

Sucks to hear about womble, have some friends there. I feel this is just the beginning.

[LSATWiz.com]

Poster who noted layoffs at the v100 earlier. Firm is NOT Womble, so those are separate
from what I reported earlier.

Sucks to hear about womble, have some friends there. I feel this is just the beginning.

That's rough. Sorry to hear. Sounds pretty shitty to lay people off because of this especially because the reason the economy is struggling is because we're trying to protect the very generation doing the firing. It is not the associates who are at real risk.