Will there be Biglaw layoffs in 2022? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Will there be Biglaw layoffs in 2022?

[tls843539]

Unlikely

[Definitely Not North]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

[Anonymous User]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

Agree. If anything happens think it will be 2023

[Anonymous User]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

Agree. If anything happens think it will be 2023

Is this likely to happen in 2023? Currently a 2L with an SA lined up: am I screwed?

[Anonymous User]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

This is dumb. Of course they'd rather not have had to pay those, but they made more money in the last two years than ever before. Hirings and firings will depend on the market.

To the 2L, relax. Predictions are hard, especially the future. It would take a real deep recession for firms to start firing. If it makes you feel better, take bankruptcy.

[Definitely Not North]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

This is dumb. Of course they'd rather not have had to pay those, but they made more money in the last two years than ever before. Hirings and firings will depend on the market.

To the 2L, relax. Predictions are hard, especially the future. It would take a real deep recession for firms to start firing. If it makes you feel better, take bankruptcy.

[BrowsingTLS]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

This is dumb. Of course they'd rather not have had to pay those, but they made more money in the last two years than ever before. Hirings and firings will depend on the market.

To the 2L, relax. Predictions are hard, especially the future. It would take a real deep recession for firms to start firing. If it makes you feel better, take bankruptcy.

The eyeroll is because you were being sarcastic, right?

That seemed clear to me. But the person who replied that they agree with you seemed serious in response to your sarcasm. So the anon you're replying to probably thought you were also serious.

[Anonymous User]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

This is dumb. Of course they'd rather not have had to pay those, but they made more money in the last two years than ever before. Hirings and firings will depend on the market.

To the 2L, relax. Predictions are hard, especially the future. It would take a real deep recession for firms to start firing. If it makes you feel better, take bankruptcy.

The eyeroll is because you were being sarcastic, right?

That seemed clear to me. But the person who replied that they agree with you seemed serious in response to your sarcasm. So the anon you're replying to probably thought you were also serious.

I'm the sandwiched anon here, and I guess I'm dumb for not catching the sarcasm, I'll take the L on that. In my defense, there's a lot of poasters here who would say that unironically. Also, given some ppl were starting to freak out, I'm gonna stand by my sincere response.

[Anonymous User]

i'm sure the partners fully intend to revenge all those signing bonuses in blood the moment they're able to

This is dumb. Of course they'd rather not have had to pay those, but they made more money in the last two years than ever before. Hirings and firings will depend on the market.

To the 2L, relax. Predictions are hard, especially the future. It would take a real deep recession for firms to start firing. If it makes you feel better, take bankruptcy.

The eyeroll is because you were being sarcastic, right?

That seemed clear to me. But the person who replied that they agree with you seemed serious in response to your sarcasm. So the anon you're replying to probably thought you were also serious.

I'm the sandwiched anon here, and I guess I'm dumb for not catching the sarcasm, I'll take the L on that. In my defense, there's a lot of poasters here who would say that unironically. Also, given some ppl were starting to freak out, I'm gonna stand by my sincere response.

poasters

[objctnyrhnr]

To be fair, we see a round of layoffs every 5-10 years. So the proposition that a round might occur in the next couple years isn’t insane. With that said, it definitely isn’t around the corner. The market might soften a little, but we have a long way to go before layoff land.

Now for some unsolicited advice:

In my view the rule of thumb is to hit your hours every single year; no exceptions. If you hit your hours routinely, you’ll already be in the subset of people who won’t be in line to help with belt tightening. (And also missing your hours by 50-100 is massively expensive when it comes to opportunity cost.)

The other day, I found out how many at my firm do not hit hours and I was baffled. So much money left on the table and really (excluding Quinn) are these hours requirements, which typically include a good chunk of pro Bono as well, really that bad? Tons of these firms are only like 1900 or 1950. Hit your damn hours.

if you are concerned that you will not hit hours because your group lacks work or not enough of it is flowing to you despite your best efforts, I think that is when you should start looking to move asap. Not when you first start to have a “talk.”

This might be obvious and well-known advice but it bears repeating.

[Anonymous User]

To be fair, we see a round of layoffs every 5-10 years. So the proposition that a round might occur in the next couple years isn’t insane. With that said, it definitely isn’t around the corner. The market might soften a little, but we have a long way to go before layoff land.

Now for some unsolicited advice:

In my view the rule of thumb is to hit your hours every single year; no exceptions. If you hit your hours routinely, you’ll already be in the subset of people who won’t be in line to help with belt tightening. (And also missing your hours by 50-100 is massively expensive when it comes to opportunity cost.)

The other day, I found out how many at my firm do not hit hours and I was baffled. So much money left on the table and really (excluding Quinn) are these hours requirements, which typically include a good chunk of pro Bono as well, really that bad? Tons of these firms are only like 1900 or 1950. Hit your damn hours.

if you are concerned that you will not hit hours because your group lacks work or not enough of it is flowing to you despite your best efforts, I think that is when you should start looking to move asap. Not when you first start to have a “talk.”

This might be obvious and well-known advice but it bears repeating.

Counterpoint, if so many in your firm don't make hours, is it really that necessary?

Also, on a personal level, there's enough pressure in this job and I don't need to add to it by stressing out about how many hours I billed. I'll probably make hours just by existing, but I'm not going to seek out extra work and stress over it.

[Anonymous User]

There’s no reason to ruminate about layoffs in a hypothetical future. If it happens, we’ll roll with it, but you’re much more likely to voluntarily jump ship. In any event, there’s enough problems today for us to worry about.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I think people who have good credentials, are good at their job, and can interview decently well, mostly withstand down cycles. It's the people with marginal credentials, and who don't really know what they're talking about, that tend to get bounced out of biglaw against their will. For example, my firm has third years that essentially function as first years -- these are the people who couldn't talk their way into another firm, especially in a bad market.

[Anonymous User]

Firms usually project 2 years out, and as it currently looks, in light of the recent salary rises and the hot lateral market, I'd say there would be no mass layoffs until at least 2024.

If you're in lit, a lot of lit activities are picking up from the backlogs due to COVID shutdowns.

[Anonymous User]

Asking "will there be layoffs" is equivalently asking "will the economy experience a sustained downturn?" None of us can answer that with any certainty or precision--if we could, we'd be preparing for our Nobel acceptance speech rather than posting here. The best I can do is to pay attention to if we are entering a downturn *now*. If we are, I start paying attention to how severe it is and how much it's affecting the business of the firm and act accordingly. We certainty aren't in one now; therefore there's not much more to say other than "steady as she goes."

I echo the comment above about hitting your hours being an easy safety net when you work at a law firm assuming you want to continue working there for some years. Being at or above 2,000 every year has given me a lot of psychological comfort and it seems crazy to not get over that line--being at 1950 vs. 2050 can mean a world of difference when it comes to trimming the fat time (and bonus time).

[Anonymous User]

Asking "will there be layoffs" is equivalently asking "will the economy experience a sustained downturn?" None of us can answer that with any certainty or precision--if we could, we'd be preparing for our Nobel acceptance speech rather than posting here. The best I can do is to pay attention to if we are entering a downturn *now*. If we are, I start paying attention to how severe it is and how much it's affecting the business of the firm and act accordingly. We certainty aren't in one now; therefore there's not much more to say other than "steady as she goes."

I echo the comment above about hitting your hours being an easy safety net when you work at a law firm assuming you want to continue working there for some years. Being at or above 2,000 every year has given me a lot of psychological comfort and it seems crazy to not get over that line--being at 1950 vs. 2050 can mean a world of difference when it comes to trimming the fat time (and bonus time).

Incoming lit SA at a V100. Is it feasible to hit 2000 hours every year if you try? I've heard that my office is busy, so I'd think so, but I just want to make sure.

[Anonymous User]

Asking "will there be layoffs" is equivalently asking "will the economy experience a sustained downturn?" None of us can answer that with any certainty or precision--if we could, we'd be preparing for our Nobel acceptance speech rather than posting here. The best I can do is to pay attention to if we are entering a downturn *now*. If we are, I start paying attention to how severe it is and how much it's affecting the business of the firm and act accordingly. We certainty aren't in one now; therefore there's not much more to say other than "steady as she goes."

I echo the comment above about hitting your hours being an easy safety net when you work at a law firm assuming you want to continue working there for some years. Being at or above 2,000 every year has given me a lot of psychological comfort and it seems crazy to not get over that line--being at 1950 vs. 2050 can mean a world of difference when it comes to trimming the fat time (and bonus time).

Does 2000+ hours seem to be the magic line at most biglaw firms, or does it really vary? Also, which practice area(s) are likely to be safest in a downturn--lit or transactional?

[Anonymous User]

Responding to both of the above:

- Having done this for a while, I think it's relatively easy (in terms of finding the work; not saying it's an enjoyable experience) to hit the 2,000 hour mark each year. It gets easier as you get more senior and start to get an intuitive sense for how to play the game; when you're a junior you're more likely to experience crazy swings in your hours and also either over-commit or under-commit but you'll get a feel for things as time goes by and your work will get more stable as you start finding "feeder" partners. One key is to try to be proactive and not wait until e.g., the case has settled but instead start to learn how to read ahead so that you're lining up a matter before the prior one winds down. But overall, if you want to do it, you should be able to hit 2,000 every year (and that does seem to be the general "mark" in the industry for a "fine year"; you won't necessarily make equity partner off a string of 2,000 hour years--some do--but you're also not going to get fired).

- Litigation is considered more insensitive to downturns, meaning it's more overall stable. Within litigation, restructuring is countercyclical (it bumps up when the economy goes down). Certain litigation practices are particularly insensitive to the economy like white collar. Versus transactional can experience huge swings and be crazy busy during boom times and then go dead during downturns. That said smart transactional groups try to manage this and don't suddenly kick people out because they're slower for three months, but there is probably more overall risk in transactional during a sustained downturn (conversely, the highs are much higher in transactional and your capacity to make huge money for the firm and be rewarded is higher, like we're seeing in the lateral market now). These are obviously very broad generalizations.

[ExpOriental]

My firm has been working with private investigators to locate TLS posters for targeted layoffs

[objctnyrhnr]

Asking "will there be layoffs" is equivalently asking "will the economy experience a sustained downturn?" None of us can answer that with any certainty or precision--if we could, we'd be preparing for our Nobel acceptance speech rather than posting here. The best I can do is to pay attention to if we are entering a downturn *now*. If we are, I start paying attention to how severe it is and how much it's affecting the business of the firm and act accordingly. We certainty aren't in one now; therefore there's not much more to say other than "steady as she goes."

I echo the comment above about hitting your hours being an easy safety net when you work at a law firm assuming you want to continue working there for some years. Being at or above 2,000 every year has given me a lot of psychological comfort and it seems crazy to not get over that line--being at 1950 vs. 2050 can mean a world of difference when it comes to trimming the fat time (and bonus time).

Incoming lit SA at a V100. Is it feasible to hit 2000 hours every year if you try? I've heard that my office is busy, so I'd think so, but I just want to make sure.

Senior lit associate building off of what I said above, and echoing a lot of what was said after my post. Hit your hours. Common wisdom is that, even though it can result in busy periods, you gotta err on the side of having too many matters in your quiver, rather than too few. As you get more senior you’re often able to strategically delegate in accordance with how much work you want to do (keeping in mind of course how much work the partners want you to do yourself).

So if we zoom out a bit, the reason, in additional to monetary benefit, of hitting your hours routinely is because it serves as an effective barometer of how good at working you are. If you are a sloppy associate or if you miss deadlines, seniors and partners aren’t gonna keep coming back to you because they don’t trust you. But if you can consistently hit the 2k line, that’s a mark to the brass that you are well liked enough to consistently get work.

In my view this is often why there’s an exodus around year 2-3. People get the vibe, or in a worse scenario the talk, that they aren’t liked enough (based on past performance) to keep getting new work.

So the short answer to the concerned SA above is to just do good work, be responsive, err on the side of saying yes to new opportunities rather than no, don’t miss issues or key docs or whatever, and don’t miss deadlines. If you do all that you’ll be fine.

[BrowsingTLS]

My firm has been working with private investigators to locate TLS posters for targeted layoffs

My theory is that the biggest of biglaw already have insights into the IP addresses of every TLS poster and can easily match us to their firms. They also factor what, if anything, we say about our specific firms into end of year comp.

Someone else suggested that you won't make partner by routinely billing just 2,000 hrs per year. I find it laughable that hours billed would be a meaningful factor in deciding who makes partner except if you're being excluded from consideration because you have billed ~1,250 your whole career. But if that's you, you probably wouldn't last long enough to be up for partner.

Also lol at it being hard to make 2,000 hours. I struggle to bill just 2,000 because I'm constantly hounded by the staffing team and can only say no so much.

[choochoo]

If you’re at a firm that gives unlimited billable credit for pro bono or business development hours, then there’s really no excuse not to hit your hours. As a junior, you can reach out to partners to ask if they have any ideas for article topics, need help preparing a client presentation, etc.

[Anonymous User]

If you’re at a firm that gives unlimited billable credit for pro bono or business development hours, then there’s really no excuse not to hit your hours. As a junior, you can reach out to partners to ask if they have any ideas for article topics, need help preparing a client presentation, etc.

I'm not following the logic here. The premise was that hitting hours is insurance against firing. How do you expect this to work? Firm says oh I know, let's keep all the associates who do tons of pro bono? It doesn't help the bottom line.

Also, "there's no excuse" is some bootlicking mindset. I don't see a point in working more than I have to.

[Anonymous User]

My firm has been working with private investigators to locate TLS posters for targeted layoffs

My theory is that the biggest of biglaw already have insights into the IP addresses of every TLS poster and can easily match us to their firms. They also factor what, if anything, we say about our specific firms into end of year comp.

Someone else suggested that you won't make partner by routinely billing just 2,000 hrs per year. I find it laughable that hours billed would be a meaningful factor in deciding who makes partner except if you're being excluded from consideration because you have billed ~1,250 your whole career. But if that's you, you probably wouldn't last long enough to be up for partner.

Also lol at it being hard to make 2,000 hours. I struggle to bill just 2,000 because I'm constantly hounded by the staffing team and can only say no so much.

Hours billed is definitely a consideration, hate it or love it. The post didn't say it was impossible to make equity billing 2,000 per year, just that you'll have a harder go at it. Presumably the voting partners use it as a proxy for "willing to do what it takes." Not saying it's a good metric but maybe the best they have. Also many modern-day equity partners are working their asses off, it's not like the 1985 two martinis and golf at 3 biglaw, and so maybe there's an element of "if I have to do it, you have to do it, we all have to do it" to the hours expectation. The counterpoint is "yes, sure, I too would work extra hard for $3 million per year." Also, inb4 someone tells us the story of the partner down the hall who does fantasy baseball all day and grabs 2 hour lunches but still makes $5m. They exist, they usually have some crazy biz relationship, just saying it's not typical these days.