Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm

I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.

Winter is Coming

Bronze
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:51 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Winter is Coming » Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:22 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm
I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.
They didn't. But what you're saying supports their point.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by objctnyrhnr » Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:19 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm
I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.
So you’re saying that the men at your institution (for example) will always be sexist by nature no matter what because they had the lived experience of being a man, and as such any time they select a man for something favorable or give a favorable review or whatever when there was a woman available (or give favorable reviews to men in even slight disproportion relative to women), this absolutely stems directly from their inherent bias that they are completely powerless to control?

Did I get that right?

User avatar
daedalus2309

Bronze
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:15 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by daedalus2309 » Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:55 am

objctnyrhnr wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:19 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm
I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.
So you’re saying that the men at your institution (for example) will always be sexist by nature no matter what because they had the lived experience of being a man, and as such any time they select a man for something favorable or give a favorable review or whatever when there was a woman available (or give favorable reviews to men in even slight disproportion relative to women), this absolutely stems directly from their inherent bias that they are completely powerless to control?

Did I get that right?
LMFAO exactly the sort of bad faith reading you can expect from the person who moderates a law school forum in his spare tine

lawlo

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:35 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by lawlo » Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm
I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.

Lol.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by objctnyrhnr » Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:40 pm

daedalus2309 wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:55 am
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:19 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm
I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.
So you’re saying that the men at your institution (for example) will always be sexist by nature no matter what because they had the lived experience of being a man, and as such any time they select a man for something favorable or give a favorable review or whatever when there was a woman available (or give favorable reviews to men in even slight disproportion relative to women), this absolutely stems directly from their inherent bias that they are completely powerless to control?

Did I get that right?
LMFAO exactly the sort of bad faith reading you can expect from the person who moderates a law school forum in his spare tine
Ah using the old ad hominem attack (on the moderator no less), in defense of the countered position, rather than acknowledge that the replied-to poster’s position is absurd. Brilliant. Well-played.

Here’s a crazy idea: rather than take the “I think therefore I am sexist” approach, aka the “different genders operate in the workplace therefore sexism exists in the workplace” approach, why not just give the evaluators the benefit of the doubt that regardless of their gender, they have the capacity to objectively examine a person’s ability to complete the task/s before them...and continue to give that benefit of the doubt unless and until there’s some direct evidence (or even just specific articulable reason to believe) this is not the case in a given situation. And seeing anything other than a dead-even split in layoffs or promotions or whatever just doesn’t suffice.

I personally evaluate several associates of different genders each year. Sometimes the women do better than the men, sometimes vice versa, and sometimes it’s an even split. I very much resent the insinuation that I’m somehow naturally incapable of completing this task with objectivity specifically because I’m a certain gender— through the poster use of the “lived experience”-type terminology. (In fact, that bare assumption feels a little sexist in and of itself.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:57 pm

As a female big law associate, I don’t think there can be a debate as to whether women face certain challenges that their male peers never will. These are institutions founded by men and almost all big law firms have around 80% male partnership. Clients also tend to be male.

I hope what happened at R&G was not a direct target of female associates. I do think that every stealth lay off deserves scrutiny, because what is being saved is the firms reputation. When this action affects women more than men, it deserves more scrutiny in my opinion because optically it is sending a message that a firm is willing to sacrifice women to save its reputation.

Tl;dr: stealth layoffs deserve scrutiny, stealth layoffs that predominately affect an under represented group deserve more.

legalpotato

New
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by legalpotato » Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:28 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:40 pm
daedalus2309 wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:55 am
objctnyrhnr wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:19 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm
I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.
So you’re saying that the men at your institution (for example) will always be sexist by nature no matter what because they had the lived experience of being a man, and as such any time they select a man for something favorable or give a favorable review or whatever when there was a woman available (or give favorable reviews to men in even slight disproportion relative to women), this absolutely stems directly from their inherent bias that they are completely powerless to control?

Did I get that right?
LMFAO exactly the sort of bad faith reading you can expect from the person who moderates a law school forum in his spare tine
Ah using the old ad hominem attack (on the moderator no less), in defense of the countered position, rather than acknowledge that the replied-to poster’s position is absurd. Brilliant. Well-played.

Here’s a crazy idea: rather than take the “I think therefore I am sexist” approach, aka the “different genders operate in the workplace therefore sexism exists in the workplace” approach, why not just give the evaluators the benefit of the doubt that regardless of their gender, they have the capacity to objectively examine a person’s ability to complete the task/s before them...and continue to give that benefit of the doubt unless and until there’s some direct evidence (or even just specific articulable reason to believe) this is not the case in a given situation. And seeing anything other than a dead-even split in layoffs or promotions or whatever just doesn’t suffice.

I personally evaluate several associates of different genders each year. Sometimes the women do better than the men, sometimes vice versa, and sometimes it’s an even split. I very much resent the insinuation that I’m somehow naturally incapable of completing this task with objectivity specifically because I’m a certain gender— through the poster use of the “lived experience”-type terminology. (In fact, that bare assumption feels a little sexist in and of itself.)
I think the above poster is right -- in the aggregate (and on a global basis), things probably due tend to favor men. If I am reading the poster's last point correctly, $$>institutional biases, which is absolutely true.
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:57 pm
As a female big law associate, I don’t think there can be a debate as to whether women face certain challenges that their male peers never will. These are institutions founded by men and almost all big law firms have around 80% male partnership. Clients also tend to be male.

I hope what happened at R&G was not a direct target of female associates. I do think that every stealth lay off deserves scrutiny, because what is being saved is the firms reputation. When this action affects women more than men, it deserves more scrutiny in my opinion because optically it is sending a message that a firm is willing to sacrifice women to save its reputation.

Tl;dr: stealth layoffs deserve scrutiny, stealth layoffs that predominately affect an under represented group deserve more.
Agree that if an under represented group is disproportionately affected, then there should be more scrutiny. But we have nothing more than some anon saying females were targeted w/out giving any facts (i.e., the stuff we care about here, numbers, class years, severance, etc.) to support that this person is doing anything more than trolling -- so don't think we are there yet. Also, query how big does the sample size need to be before we can say some group was disproportionately affected? If 10 associates were stealthed out of a pool of 500, and 7 out of 10 were females, is that a big enough sample size to matter (compare to if there were 50 associates stealthed out of a pool of 500%, and 35 out of 50 were women, then there would be a more clear case).

All to say, let political trolling please and more #s.

Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2020 2:40 pm

Around 4-5 women in NY office. Practice group with around 25-30 associates.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:13 pm

objctnyrhnr wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:19 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:20 pm
I hope the above poster(s) do not mean to intimate that they are attorneys at r&g.

In my exp., my colleagues at r&g are nuanced enough in their views of “competence”/ “reasonableness”/ “productivity” to understand that their respective views are affected, or biased, by their lived experiences. Accordingly, my colleagues also understand that those who govern institutions thus infuse those institutions with biased mechanisms that, in the aggregate, favor those who have similar lived experiences.

More importantly, in my experience, the bottom line (and all the institutional biases implicated thereby) is the single most important factor in the review process.
So you’re saying that the men at your institution (for example) will always be sexist by nature no matter what because they had the lived experience of being a man, and as such any time they select a man for something favorable or give a favorable review or whatever when there was a woman available (or give favorable reviews to men in even slight disproportion relative to women), this absolutely stems directly from their inherent bias that they are completely powerless to control?

Did I get that right?
Strongly disagree with most of what you've been saying ITT.

But we might agree that it's fucking stupid to assume that male leadership/board/etc. = men favored, or that X people on a board/leadership/etc = X favored. I say this as a man on a board of two other men who grant law firm fellowships and 80% of the time grant them to women instead of men. When you're aware of a bias, you can work to fight it despite your gender. Our board is also seeking female board members, before I get attacked for that.

Anonymous because I don't want to dox myself given the specificity of what we do.

lawlo

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:35 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by lawlo » Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:56 pm

.
Last edited by lawlo on Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JF215

New
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by JF215 » Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:23 pm

Throwaway5818 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:47 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:15 pm
I think the firms that will come out as the leaders in terms of equality won’t be the ones who tout “leadership trainings” but those that consistently hire, invest in, retain and ultimately promote those from under represented backgrounds (including women). The proof will be in the numbers.
I doubt these "leaders in equality" will be leaders in quality, though. Anytime you bias the hiring process in favor of anything but merit, you lower the quality of your workforce. Being a certain race/sex/religion has no effect on your ability as an attorney.
how is this measured? who measures it?

User avatar
Dcc617

Gold
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Dcc617 » Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:30 am

You can't even seriously argue with someone who looks at the hyper homogenous group of biglaw associates (and the somehow even more homogenous group of biglaw partners) and then publicly says that homogeneity reflects the talent in the legal field.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


veers

New
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by veers » Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:09 am

JF215 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:23 pm
Throwaway5818 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:47 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:15 pm
I think the firms that will come out as the leaders in terms of equality won’t be the ones who tout “leadership trainings” but those that consistently hire, invest in, retain and ultimately promote those from under represented backgrounds (including women). The proof will be in the numbers.
I doubt these "leaders in equality" will be leaders in quality, though. Anytime you bias the hiring process in favor of anything but merit, you lower the quality of your workforce. Being a certain race/sex/religion has no effect on your ability as an attorney.
how is this measured? who measures it?
Partners measure this when deciding who to give work to. If you produce high quality work with minimal handholding, then more work will follow. If you produce work with errors, miss significant issues, ask too many stupid questions, or otherwise prove incompetent, then you end up getting a pink slip.

It is a very meritocratic system - partners are highly incentivized to retain competent associates and push out the deadweight.

Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:09 am

Has anybody heard of firms actively hiring laterals (other than BK associates)? It seems that a few people I know lateraled to the same V5 in different offices and different practice group but that could of course just be a coincidence.

Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:22 pm

cisscum wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:14 am
This thread sucks now. If you don't have info about R&G, cleary, or other places, please stop posting
Heard a rumor that Shotkin Zhang & Associates - NY may be considering furloughing some associates. :lol:

FastFuse

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:31 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by FastFuse » Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:09 am
Has anybody heard of firms actively hiring laterals (other than BK associates)? It seems that a few people I know lateraled to the same V5 in different offices and different practice group but that could of course just be a coincidence.
Firms are also hiring for finance.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Throwaway5818

New
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:40 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Throwaway5818 » Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:59 pm

veers wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:09 am
JF215 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:23 pm
Throwaway5818 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:47 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:15 pm
I think the firms that will come out as the leaders in terms of equality won’t be the ones who tout “leadership trainings” but those that consistently hire, invest in, retain and ultimately promote those from under represented backgrounds (including women). The proof will be in the numbers.
I doubt these "leaders in equality" will be leaders in quality, though. Anytime you bias the hiring process in favor of anything but merit, you lower the quality of your workforce. Being a certain race/sex/religion has no effect on your ability as an attorney.
how is this measured? who measures it?
Partners measure this when deciding who to give work to. If you produce high quality work with minimal handholding, then more work will follow. If you produce work with errors, miss significant issues, ask too many stupid questions, or otherwise prove incompetent, then you end up getting a pink slip.

It is a very meritocratic system - partners are highly incentivized to retain competent associates and push out the deadweight.
Ding ding ding. It's pretty easy to determine who is a good worker and who is not.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 3503
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by nealric » Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:54 pm

Mod note: I've deleted OT discussion. I'd normally just lock the thread, but wanted to preserve it given the content. There may be some OT still around, but I've deleted the most recent regardless of the positions taken. There is an OT forum if you'd like to debate.

JF215

New
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by JF215 » Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:57 pm

veers wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:09 am
JF215 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:23 pm
Throwaway5818 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:47 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:15 pm
I think the firms that will come out as the leaders in terms of equality won’t be the ones who tout “leadership trainings” but those that consistently hire, invest in, retain and ultimately promote those from under represented backgrounds (including women). The proof will be in the numbers.
I doubt these "leaders in equality" will be leaders in quality, though. Anytime you bias the hiring process in favor of anything but merit, you lower the quality of your workforce. Being a certain race/sex/religion has no effect on your ability as an attorney.
how is this measured? who measures it?
Partners measure this when deciding who to give work to. If you produce high quality work with minimal handholding, then more work will follow. If you produce work with errors, miss significant issues, ask too many stupid questions, or otherwise prove incompetent, then you end up getting a pink slip.

It is a very meritocratic system - partners are highly incentivized to retain competent associates and push out the deadweight.
How does this work w/r/t associates who aren't supervised by partners? And how do you square this conclusion with the study we all heard about (https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... ous_biases)?

User avatar
Sackboy

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:14 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Sackboy » Tue Jun 23, 2020 5:24 pm

nealric wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:54 pm
Mod note: I've deleted OT discussion. I'd normally just lock the thread, but wanted to preserve it given the content. There may be some OT still around, but I've deleted the most recent regardless of the positions taken. There is an OT forum if you'd like to debate.
You've pretty much removed the corpses around the well but not removed the poison from the well itself. As long as this thread is on the gender/race track, it's not going to get back to OT discussion. The gender/race in firing discussion should be moved to the lounge or a different thread in legal employment.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:39 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:09 am
Has anybody heard of firms actively hiring laterals (other than BK associates)? It seems that a few people I know lateraled to the same V5 in different offices and different practice group but that could of course just be a coincidence.
My V40 is looking to hire life science midlevels, FWIW. But definitely hiring much, much slower than they were pre-pandemic.

Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:10 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:39 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:09 am
Has anybody heard of firms actively hiring laterals (other than BK associates)? It seems that a few people I know lateraled to the same V5 in different offices and different practice group but that could of course just be a coincidence.
My V40 is looking to hire life science midlevels, FWIW. But definitely hiring much, much slower than they were pre-pandemic.
Goodwin? Saw that posting, and not going to lie that it hurts a little bit as a stealthed associate from the Tech/LS group that they're already going back to the hiring well while the April layoffs aren't even done severance yet.

If not Goodwin, would love to know the firm :)

Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:42 am

Is there any more info on Ropes layoffs? What group was it? Are we sure this is true?

Anonymous User
Posts: 350857
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Stealth Layoff Tracker (COVID-19 2020)

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:10 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:39 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:09 am
Has anybody heard of firms actively hiring laterals (other than BK associates)? It seems that a few people I know lateraled to the same V5 in different offices and different practice group but that could of course just be a coincidence.
My V40 is looking to hire life science midlevels, FWIW. But definitely hiring much, much slower than they were pre-pandemic.
Goodwin? Saw that posting, and not going to lie that it hurts a little bit as a stealthed associate from the Tech/LS group that they're already going back to the hiring well while the April layoffs aren't even done severance yet.

If not Goodwin, would love to know the firm :)
As a fellow Goodwin stealthee, I had the same exact reaction. I figured they would start hiring again later this year, but I'm shocked they started doing it so soon.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”