Top Law Schools

So Orrick just announced they're deferring the start date for their incoming class to January 2021. I'm an incoming associate at a v60 and I'm worried. Is this going to be the norm?

Omg this is freaking me out - I’m in the same boat awaiting that possibility. Although better to know now than a month from start date, etc. I guess...

Is there any indication whether incoming associates will be paid during deferment, and if so, how much?

trmckenz wrote:Is there any indication whether incoming associates will be paid during deferment, and if so, how much?

The only real reference point is 2009. I know there's a list on here somewhere with what specifically each firm did in terms of (1) how long the deferment was; and (2) how much (if anything) they paid. The gist of the list was that the majority of the firms gave $10-$20k advances. Some didn't give anything though. As a general rule of thumb, the higher ranked firms took better care of the deferred associates (because they could).

I'm also worried about this. I saw in the ATL article it mentioned the bar being delayed (among general COVID-19 concerns) as a reason for deferring start dates. I'm not sure I understand this. At my firm, I've been told by multiple associates that not everyone passed the bar the first time and those associates were given some time off to retake the bar as if it was no big deal. So even though the bar exam is delayed, why is this part of the start date calculus when incoming associates are generally supervised anyway and not everyone passes the bar?

Logicalfallacy wrote:I'm also worried about this. I saw in the ATL article it mentioned the bar being delayed (among general COVID-19 concerns) as a reason for deferring start dates. I'm not sure I understand this. At my firm, I've been told by multiple associates that not everyone passed the bar the first time and those associates were given some time off to retake the bar as if it was no big deal. So even though the bar exam is delayed, why is this part of the start date calculus when incoming associates are generally supervised anyway and not everyone passes the bar?

I was supposed to start "early September," but that was before this shitstorm hit. I assumed the rescheduled bar would impact our start dates somewhat (I'm in NY FYI, bar exam rescheduled for 9/9), but I also assumed we'd still be able to start sometime in September and maybe they'd give us like a week or two off after the bar. I wasn't basing that off anything other than wishful thinking.

I also think the rescheduled bar gives firms greater incentive to defer people, since they won't face so much negative PR if it's "because of the bar."

LHand1993 wrote:

Logicalfallacy wrote:I'm also worried about this. I saw in the ATL article it mentioned the bar being delayed (among general COVID-19 concerns) as a reason for deferring start dates. I'm not sure I understand this. At my firm, I've been told by multiple associates that not everyone passed the bar the first time and those associates were given some time off to retake the bar as if it was no big deal. So even though the bar exam is delayed, why is this part of the start date calculus when incoming associates are generally supervised anyway and not everyone passes the bar?

I was supposed to start "early September," but that was before this shitstorm hit. I assumed the rescheduled bar would impact our start dates somewhat (I'm in NY FYI, bar exam rescheduled for 9/9), but I also assumed we'd still be able to start sometime in September and maybe they'd give us like a week or two off after the bar. I wasn't basing that off anything other than wishful thinking.

I also think the rescheduled bar gives firms greater incentive to defer people, since they won't face so much negative PR if it's "because of the bar."

Yeah, I can see delaying the start date to October or later September, but January 2021 seems overkill if it's really because of the bar. I suspect it's probably the optics, like you mention, but maybe I'm wrong and some firms really care about getting bar results.

Is there anything to law firms that have a huge technology practice with strong CA presence being the first large law firms to making these cash-saving decisions in recent weeks? Orrick's deferral for incoming associates is one, and Cooley cutting the summer program from 10 weeks to 6 weeks (with payment now of only 6 weeks) is another.

Logicalfallacy wrote:At my firm, I've been told by multiple associates that not everyone passed the bar the first time and those associates were given some time off to retake the bar as if it was no big deal. So even though the bar exam is delayed, why is this part of the start date calculus when incoming associates are generally supervised anyway and not everyone passes the bar?

Bear in mind that "not everyone" passing the bar isn't the same as the entire first-year associate class not passing the bar. I agree that it's largely optics, but there's a huge difference between giving a handful of associates some extra time off to prep for February and giving all your first years extra time off.

Make sense with states moving the Bar to late September and with the Holidays right around the corner.

cavalier1138 wrote:

Logicalfallacy wrote:At my firm, I've been told by multiple associates that not everyone passed the bar the first time and those associates were given some time off to retake the bar as if it was no big deal. So even though the bar exam is delayed, why is this part of the start date calculus when incoming associates are generally supervised anyway and not everyone passes the bar?

Bear in mind that "not everyone" passing the bar isn't the same as the entire first-year associate class not passing the bar. I agree that it's largely optics, but there's a huge difference between giving a handful of associates some extra time off to prep for February and giving all your first years extra time off.

Yeah I wasn't trying to imply that firms should have the same start date, give everyone time off to study for and take the bar exam, and then have everyone come back. I expect many/most firms that had start dates before September will have to defer the start dates somewhat. I just don't see how pushing start dates to 2021 because associates have to take the bar exam in September/October 2020 makes any sense if firms don't need all of the first year associates to be licensed right off the bat.

Anonymous User wrote:Is there anything to law firms that have a huge technology practice with strong CA presence being the first large law firms to making these cash-saving decisions in recent weeks? Orrick's deferral for incoming associates is one, and Cooley cutting the summer program from 10 weeks to 6 weeks (with payment now of only 6 weeks) is another.

That's an interesting point, but I would think firms' tech practices are doing pretty well right now. Litigation departments that represent tech companies could be looking at a slowdown as GCs are probably focused more on other issues and litigation budgets have decreased (not to mention the courts closing). Equally plausible that it's totally a coincidence that it's Cooley and Orrick making these moves.

Orrick just became the equivalent of Supreme Court precedent that sets the stage for a nationwide shitshow. Fuck, Orrick. This is a nightmare. Now I need a TLS account, to see more than just three posts per thread.

2020Graduate wrote:Orrick just became the equivalent of Supreme Court precedent that sets the stage for a nationwide shitshow. Fuck, Orrick. This is a nightmare. Now I need a TLS account, to see more than just three posts per thread.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I thinkOrrick was already one of those weird firms where you don’t automatically advance from “associate” to “senior associate” and such.

2013 wrote:

2020Graduate wrote:Orrick just became the equivalent of Supreme Court precedent that sets the stage for a nationwide shitshow. Fuck, Orrick. This is a nightmare. Now I need a TLS account, to see more than just three posts per thread.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I thinkOrrick was already one of those weird firms where you don’t automatically advance from “associate” to “senior associate” and such.

Can you elaborate?

Here's the link on deferral from 2009.

https://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/nationw ... t-in-2010/

objctnyrhnr wrote:

2013 wrote:

2020Graduate wrote:Orrick just became the equivalent of Supreme Court precedent that sets the stage for a nationwide shitshow. Fuck, Orrick. This is a nightmare. Now I need a TLS account, to see more than just three posts per thread.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I thinkOrrick was already one of those weird firms where you don’t automatically advance from “associate” to “senior associate” and such.

Can you elaborate?

I hope 2013 is correct. And I welcome elaborating.

Wallyplatypus wrote:Here's the link on deferral from 2009.

https://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/nationw ... t-in-2010/

Thanks. Does anyone know if firms that offered an attractive deferral stipend (like WilmerHale's $75,000 if you start in fall 2010 rather than Spring 2010) later failed to bring the associates on board?

objctnyrhnr wrote:

2013 wrote:

2020Graduate wrote:Orrick just became the equivalent of Supreme Court precedent that sets the stage for a nationwide shitshow. Fuck, Orrick. This is a nightmare. Now I need a TLS account, to see more than just three posts per thread.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I thinkOrrick was already one of those weird firms where you don’t automatically advance from “associate” to “senior associate” and such.

Can you elaborate?

I don’t think Orrick was at the same level as firms just just advanced everyone by class year. Orrick found ways to pay people less (like not advancing associates who didn’t hit hours to managing associate from associate). So I don’t think Orrick having issues necessarily means the floodgates have opened.

I could easily be very wrong though

2013 wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:

2013 wrote:

2020Graduate wrote:Orrick just became the equivalent of Supreme Court precedent that sets the stage for a nationwide shitshow. Fuck, Orrick. This is a nightmare. Now I need a TLS account, to see more than just three posts per thread.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I thinkOrrick was already one of those weird firms where you don’t automatically advance from “associate” to “senior associate” and such.

Can you elaborate?

I don’t think Orrick was at the same level as firms just just advanced everyone by class year. Orrick found ways to pay people less (like not advancing associates who didn’t hit hours to managing associate from associate). So I don’t think Orrick having issues necessarily means the floodgates have opened.

I could easily be very wrong though

Yeah, I haven't heard favorable things about how Orrick treats its associates. Not sure how the partners see it, but it's not my impression that Orrick is going to be a firm that folks use as their baseline on how to approach things. But who knows, firms may just be looking at anyone so they can make cuts but not get a bad reputation.

This happened to me when I graduated - the firm delayed the start date to January of next year. I took an advance from the firm and went traveling for a couple of months. I'm still alive and highly recommend taking the time to charge up your batteries before your life is an endless grid of time entries.

papermateflair wrote:

2013 wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:

2013 wrote:

2020Graduate wrote:Orrick just became the equivalent of Supreme Court precedent that sets the stage for a nationwide shitshow. Fuck, Orrick. This is a nightmare. Now I need a TLS account, to see more than just three posts per thread.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I thinkOrrick was already one of those weird firms where you don’t automatically advance from “associate” to “senior associate” and such.

Can you elaborate?

I don’t think Orrick was at the same level as firms just just advanced everyone by class year. Orrick found ways to pay people less (like not advancing associates who didn’t hit hours to managing associate from associate). So I don’t think Orrick having issues necessarily means the floodgates have opened.

I could easily be very wrong though

Yeah, I haven't heard favorable things about how Orrick treats its associates. Not sure how the partners see it, but it's not my impression that Orrick is going to be a firm that folks use as their baseline on how to approach things. But who knows, firms may just be looking at anyone so they can make cuts but not get a bad reputation.

Orrick is up there as a standard biglaw leader in California, especially in NorCal.

It's a shame the new class won't be able to take advantage of the "extra year" they would have gotten on the resume line had they started at the end of a calendar year.

Assuming there is a stipend involved, this is great. You get to relax a bit after this year and will have ample time to study for the bar whenever it is. Seems like this makes total sense given the circumstances.

2020Graduate wrote:

Wallyplatypus wrote:Here's the link on deferral from 2009.

https://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/nationw ... t-in-2010/

Thanks. Does anyone know if firms that offered an attractive deferral stipend (like WilmerHale's $75,000 if you start in fall 2010 rather than Spring 2010) later failed to bring the associates on board?

Answered my own question. With deferral, as I expected, firms do sometimes fail to keep their promise to bring you on. Which makes me wonder if it's better to take the money and risk not being brought on, or to start early but risk an early push out (where you would have taken more money via deferral).

https://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/chadbou ... mployment/
https://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/dewey-l ... rral-year/
https://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/blank-r ... le-signal/

Of all the things to freak out about in the industry during these crazy times, this does not strike me as one of them to be honest.

Do you have any idea how many times during my biglaw tenure (and I say this as much as I do honestly enjoy the gig), I’ve thought about how amazing it would be to do some traveling or even some staycationing without worrying about court imposed deadlines or hitting my hours or responding to emails? Getting the opportunity to receive some money while having an amazing offer in hand while not having to report to work after the stress of school and then the stress of the bar strikes me as a pretty solid situation.

And I want to add that I think it’s extremely unlikely that there will be a 2009 Repeat where some people going to reputable firms (keyword reputable) will end up with rescinded offers.* Thinking about it, the more Time for which you defer, the better off you probably are.

Frankly, the notion of somebody with a vault50 offer getting stressed over this when people are actually getting laid off/salaries slashed/furloughed with no end date is a little rough on the people with ACTUAL biglaw ITE-related problems.

*my sentiments do not apply to people going to smaller firms or maybe even anything below the approximate amlaw100. I do think some of those firms will fold, I hate to say.