I Got Stealthed - My 2022 Special Bonus Edition Forum

[elmar]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

I think this take may be overly optimistic. The marginal value of a pro bono hour when you're in a situation where work has "dried up" in a semi-permanent way -- not talking about a month lull between cases but several months where you can't get work despite the firm being busy -- is probably negative in the sense that it's distracting you from what you should be doing, which is trying to lateral. My philosophy has always been that pro bono hours are meant to be "icing on the cake." They're a fine way to burnish credentials and build skill if you're billing above 2,000 hours or close to it. I don't know if ever in the history of law firm administration has a management committee said "well, Johnny only billed 800 hours this year but by God he had a great 1983 case." Partners don't care; they're too mercenary for this to matter even if they say otherwise for the NALP credential.

That's fair, although I think it's possible to take on the pro bono work to get some experience *and* try to lateral, especially depending on what experience you already have.

I'm the first poster from 8:55 AM. I agree that trying to lateral should be your number 1 priority if there is a sustained pattern of not having work despite attempts to find it (and it's not a situation where no one in your group has work but you are still a favorite associate). I still think it's a good idea to use pro bono to pad hours, get experience, and help people. Lateralling can take time, but it's not going to fill up the rest of your work-day hours, especially if you use a recruiter.

If Johnny is a fourth year and only billed 1600 hours (200 pro bono), but he was the primary brief writer and argued a 1983 case and won, he's in a much better spot than Joey the fourth year who billed 1400 hours with zero pro bono and zero major briefs where he was the primary drafter and didn't argue any motions. Even if Johnny decides he needs to lateral, he can brag his 1983 case in interviews. Having experience arguing motions and drafting entire merits briefs is something firms like when hiring, even if its pro bono. (I'm lit, so sorry my examples are going to be lit-focused)

Maybe (scratch that, definitely) it's the cynic in me but I honestly don't think this is the case. This sounds like something someone who does pro bono tells himself to convince himself there's a benefit to it (setting aside the human benefit of helping someone, which is legit, but we're talking from the perspective of law firm career advancement). The longer I've been in biglaw, the more I've become convinced that most partners, outside a small (and usually non-influential) set of "pro bono" partners, literally give 0 shits about pro bono and if anything see it as a distraction.

So to take your specific example about how Johnny is being interviewed to lateral over: I feel like if anything, his bringing up his pro bono work would be a negative for the interviewing partner who wants to find someone who's going to consistently churn bills and get client work done. "Oh, crap, he's one of those; no wonder he's trying to leave his old firm and they're not fighting for him to stay; this isn't the anecdote I want to hear."

Law firms are businesses, first and foremost. Pro bono work doesn't pay the bills and it doesn't line the partners' pockets. So most people most of the time don't care about it and don't want you to be wasting your time on it if there's a better (client-billable) use of your time you could be engaged in. Note, this entire post would be anathema to most law firms' recruiting committees who definitely want law students to know about their heartfelt commitment to pro bono work to try to cover over the fact that 99.9% of the firm's efforts are devoted toward defending international banks and gun manufacturers.

I wouldn't say pro-bono has zero value to a firm, but I would consider it part of the firm's marketing efforts. Why do you think firms go through the trouble to have a pro-bono partner? That person isn't there out of altruism. That person is there to sell the firm. To a lesser extent, a pro bono partner can also reduce the firm from getting flooded with pet projects of various partners that don't have marketing value, and to prevent associates from getting flooded with pro-bono work so they can't do paying work.

An associate can leverage pro bono to get a level of responsibility that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get, so they can move up to that responsibility on a paid client. On the right case, it can be a good way to get visibility as an associate.

But I've certainly seen junior associates getting pro-bonoed to death. Associate has low hours for one reason or another (maybe a case settled or a deal died), and there's not a ton of urgent work floating around, so they get assigned a big pro bono project. Pro bono project ends up taking up a bunch of their time, limiting their ability to take more billable work (or worse causing their billable work quality to suffer as they race to meet deadlines and learn new things), so their hours are low. Since their billable hours are low, they get assigned more pro-bono. It can be a self-reinforcing cycle of pro bono and other non-billable work that can be difficult to escape from.

I've always had the suspicion that there must be some kind of tax benefit to the pro bono work as well. I wonder if a firm can somehow use the pro bono hours to reduce its tax obligation.

[nealric]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

I think this take may be overly optimistic. The marginal value of a pro bono hour when you're in a situation where work has "dried up" in a semi-permanent way -- not talking about a month lull between cases but several months where you can't get work despite the firm being busy -- is probably negative in the sense that it's distracting you from what you should be doing, which is trying to lateral. My philosophy has always been that pro bono hours are meant to be "icing on the cake." They're a fine way to burnish credentials and build skill if you're billing above 2,000 hours or close to it. I don't know if ever in the history of law firm administration has a management committee said "well, Johnny only billed 800 hours this year but by God he had a great 1983 case." Partners don't care; they're too mercenary for this to matter even if they say otherwise for the NALP credential.

That's fair, although I think it's possible to take on the pro bono work to get some experience *and* try to lateral, especially depending on what experience you already have.

I'm the first poster from 8:55 AM. I agree that trying to lateral should be your number 1 priority if there is a sustained pattern of not having work despite attempts to find it (and it's not a situation where no one in your group has work but you are still a favorite associate). I still think it's a good idea to use pro bono to pad hours, get experience, and help people. Lateralling can take time, but it's not going to fill up the rest of your work-day hours, especially if you use a recruiter.

If Johnny is a fourth year and only billed 1600 hours (200 pro bono), but he was the primary brief writer and argued a 1983 case and won, he's in a much better spot than Joey the fourth year who billed 1400 hours with zero pro bono and zero major briefs where he was the primary drafter and didn't argue any motions. Even if Johnny decides he needs to lateral, he can brag his 1983 case in interviews. Having experience arguing motions and drafting entire merits briefs is something firms like when hiring, even if its pro bono. (I'm lit, so sorry my examples are going to be lit-focused)

Maybe (scratch that, definitely) it's the cynic in me but I honestly don't think this is the case. This sounds like something someone who does pro bono tells himself to convince himself there's a benefit to it (setting aside the human benefit of helping someone, which is legit, but we're talking from the perspective of law firm career advancement). The longer I've been in biglaw, the more I've become convinced that most partners, outside a small (and usually non-influential) set of "pro bono" partners, literally give 0 shits about pro bono and if anything see it as a distraction.

So to take your specific example about how Johnny is being interviewed to lateral over: I feel like if anything, his bringing up his pro bono work would be a negative for the interviewing partner who wants to find someone who's going to consistently churn bills and get client work done. "Oh, crap, he's one of those; no wonder he's trying to leave his old firm and they're not fighting for him to stay; this isn't the anecdote I want to hear."

Law firms are businesses, first and foremost. Pro bono work doesn't pay the bills and it doesn't line the partners' pockets. So most people most of the time don't care about it and don't want you to be wasting your time on it if there's a better (client-billable) use of your time you could be engaged in. Note, this entire post would be anathema to most law firms' recruiting committees who definitely want law students to know about their heartfelt commitment to pro bono work to try to cover over the fact that 99.9% of the firm's efforts are devoted toward defending international banks and gun manufacturers.

I wouldn't say pro-bono has zero value to a firm, but I would consider it part of the firm's marketing efforts. Why do you think firms go through the trouble to have a pro-bono partner? That person isn't there out of altruism. That person is there to sell the firm. To a lesser extent, a pro bono partner can also reduce the firm from getting flooded with pet projects of various partners that don't have marketing value, and to prevent associates from getting flooded with pro-bono work so they can't do paying work.

An associate can leverage pro bono to get a level of responsibility that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get, so they can move up to that responsibility on a paid client. On the right case, it can be a good way to get visibility as an associate.

But I've certainly seen junior associates getting pro-bonoed to death. Associate has low hours for one reason or another (maybe a case settled or a deal died), and there's not a ton of urgent work floating around, so they get assigned a big pro bono project. Pro bono project ends up taking up a bunch of their time, limiting their ability to take more billable work (or worse causing their billable work quality to suffer as they race to meet deadlines and learn new things), so their hours are low. Since their billable hours are low, they get assigned more pro-bono. It can be a self-reinforcing cycle of pro bono and other non-billable work that can be difficult to escape from.

I've always had the suspicion that there must be some kind of tax benefit to the pro bono work as well. I wonder if a firm can somehow use the pro bono hours to reduce its tax obligation.

No, not really. Charitable contributions and overhead related to pro bono are deductible, but so are expenses for servicing paying clients.

[glitched]

Sorry to hear - probably going to start happening more regularly. This is cliche but it's not your fault. And even if it is, fck 'em!

[Anonymous User]

The responses in this thread are weirdly eager to blame the people who've been let go. Maybe they were slacking or otherwise a bad performer, but if so, it's still notable that the need for warm bodies didn't outweigh any problems with their performance, which seems to have been what was happening during the crazy billing etc. time. Like even if you think the poster probably deserved it, no need to get so accusatory when both stealthees seem to have recognized their days were numbered.

edit: sorry, accidental anon, this is nixy

Yup - seems to be the standard lawyer reaction of "oh god, I hope that doesn't happen to me", quickly moving to "give me more data" in order to support a conclusion of "well, that person deserved it, so I'm safe". The flight to self protection and self preservation when maybe a little sympathy might not go amiss is sadly all too predictable.

[Helicopter]

The responses in this thread are weirdly eager ….

edit: sorry, accidental anon, this is nixy

Yup - seems to be the standard lawyer reaction … The flight to self protection and self preservation when maybe a little sympathy might not go amiss is sadly all too predictable.

I wasnt lacking empathy, but if I was in law school and said “the law school unfairly dismissed me”, but it turns out that I was in fact failing for months and they put me on probation and then I didn’t get my grades up, you would think it was something I did and maybe I was misusing the term “dismissed”.

No one is pretending biglaw is a hospitable place to be or that it’s involuntary servitude.

It’s hundreds of thousands of dollars to work 1800 billable hours. Voluntarily.

Everyone keeps wanting to pretend like biglaw is something it isn’t.

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

Was it surprising that a biglaw firm laid off a lawyer who wasn’t meeting their billable hours for months? No.

Do I feel sympathy? Yes.

But, do I think lawyers with fat bank accounts, the voluntary decision making ability to change jobs, and the independence (and ability) to go to a smaller firm need to understand that if you are slow for multiple months you should create an exit strategy proactively? Yes.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to hear - probably going to start happening more regularly. This is cliche but it's not your fault. And even if it is, fck 'em!

This is so true and to the degree OP or anyone getting stealthed can internalize it, that's to their advantage and they should do it.

I got stealthed years ago, and a surprisingly helpful thing a friend told me at the time was: "They're assholes and they don't like you. Wear it like a badge of honor."

[nixy]

The responses in this thread are weirdly eager ….

edit: sorry, accidental anon, this is nixy

Yup - seems to be the standard lawyer reaction … The flight to self protection and self preservation when maybe a little sympathy might not go amiss is sadly all too predictable.

I wasnt lacking empathy, but if I was in law school and said “the law school unfairly dismissed me”, but it turns out that I was in fact failing for months and they put me on probation and then I didn’t get my grades up, you would think it was something I did and maybe I was misusing the term “dismissed”.

No one is pretending biglaw is a hospitable place to be or that it’s involuntary servitude.

It’s hundreds of thousands of dollars to work 1800 billable hours. Voluntarily.

Everyone keeps wanting to pretend like biglaw is something it isn’t.

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

Was it surprising that a biglaw firm laid off a lawyer who wasn’t meeting their billable hours for months? No.

Do I feel sympathy? Yes.

But, do I think lawyers with fat bank accounts, the voluntary decision making ability to change jobs, and the independence (and ability) to go to a smaller firm need to understand that if you are slow for multiple months you should create an exit strategy proactively? Yes.

1) we still don’t know *why* these people’s hours were low. If it was out of their control and not due to poor quality work, then it’s not at all the same as being on probation for bad grades. If someone gets let go for low hours because the firm doesn’t have work for them, that’s getting stealthed in my book even if they might have been able to get out sooner.


2) why are you scolding them for not creating an exit strategy? Neither of them has claimed it was unfair, just that it sucks. Nor have either of them revealed all the details about what they were doing while their hours were low, so for all you know they were trying to leave and the timing didn’t work.

I get that it’s comforting to be able to blame the people who get let go because they did something you would never, ever do so you’ll be fine, but all they’re doing is saying “well, this situation sucks.” I don’t get the need to chastise them with all the ways it has to have been their own fault so suck it up, buttercup.

Like could they have handled it differently? Maybe. Doesn’t mean it’s still not a crappy position to be in.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

As was discussed above, "stealthed" does not at all exclude people who don't hit their hours. It would be a nearly useless term if it did, because almost nobody who hits their hours and is expected to continue doing so gets fired.

It *does* imply someone is not being fired for performance reasons. Associates can fall short of hours for reasons that are, or are not, their fault. Sure, bad performance can lead to low hours, but it's also not that unreasonable to think an associate in certain corporate groups might be well below target these days, especially someone who lateraled when firms were hiring anyone with a pulse and watched a lot of work dry up fast. There's no suggestion OP is making a habit out of turning down billable work because of the pro bono he did--most people who do the latter are not overloaded with the former.

If you are to take OP being told he did good work at face value, it's a textbook stealthing. Actually, maybe even a purer one than is typical, because many firms who fire a pile of people when work slows down claim it's for "performance reasons." Sure, they picked the bottom 10% to cut, but it's the same bottom 10% they were happy to keep around when business was gangbusters. For lots of people in the "performance" layoffs of late 2008, their firing was the first time the firm ever said anything negative about their work.

[Anonymous User]

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

As was discussed above, "stealthed" does not at all exclude people who don't hit their hours. It would be a nearly useless term if it did, because almost nobody who hits their hours and is expected to continue doing so gets fired.

It *does* imply someone is not being fired for performance reasons. Associates can fall short of hours for reasons that are, or are not, their fault. Sure, bad performance can lead to low hours, but it's also not that unreasonable to think an associate in certain corporate groups might be well below target these days, especially someone who lateraled when firms were hiring anyone with a pulse and watched a lot of work dry up fast. There's no suggestion OP is making a habit out of turning down billable work because of the pro bono he did--most people who do the latter are not overloaded with the former.

If you are to take OP being told he did good work at face value, it's a textbook stealthing. Actually, maybe even a purer one than is typical, because many firms who fire a pile of people when work slows down claim it's for "performance reasons." Sure, they picked the bottom 10% to cut, but it's the same bottom 10% they were happy to keep around when business was gangbusters. For lots of people in the "performance" layoffs of late 2008, their firing was the first time the firm ever said anything negative about their work.

I think folks are taking issue that one can do good work at 100 hours a month and not expect to be fired. If someone is consistently that slow, at most firms its intentional which directly ties to performance. You can’t separate good legal work and hours to evaluate performance. If x makes the best brief or best SPA but only does 1 a month when peers are doing x2 or x3 more, that’s a performance issue!

[Anonymous User]

First, only at TLS could we be having this "number of angels on the head of a pin" discussion. Second, this guy wasn't stealthed. "Stealthed" incorporates the concept that things are going along more or less fine for you and then you're suddenly let go, often in a surreptitious manner (e.g., w/ a confidentiliaty requirement, off-cycle from review), typically because of some macro factor well beyond your control (the Great Recession; the practice group is caving in; the firm is being acquired or winding down). Stealthed isn't some schmo billing 80 hours a month to clients for a year at an otherwise busy firm being told to find a new opportunity -- that's called a performance firing. To quote my hero and legal icon Andy Calder, "this isn't a gravy train" lmfao

[nixy]

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

As was discussed above, "stealthed" does not at all exclude people who don't hit their hours. It would be a nearly useless term if it did, because almost nobody who hits their hours and is expected to continue doing so gets fired.

It *does* imply someone is not being fired for performance reasons. Associates can fall short of hours for reasons that are, or are not, their fault. Sure, bad performance can lead to low hours, but it's also not that unreasonable to think an associate in certain corporate groups might be well below target these days, especially someone who lateraled when firms were hiring anyone with a pulse and watched a lot of work dry up fast. There's no suggestion OP is making a habit out of turning down billable work because of the pro bono he did--most people who do the latter are not overloaded with the former.

If you are to take OP being told he did good work at face value, it's a textbook stealthing. Actually, maybe even a purer one than is typical, because many firms who fire a pile of people when work slows down claim it's for "performance reasons." Sure, they picked the bottom 10% to cut, but it's the same bottom 10% they were happy to keep around when business was gangbusters. For lots of people in the "performance" layoffs of late 2008, their firing was the first time the firm ever said anything negative about their work.

I think folks are taking issue that one can do good work at 100 hours a month and not expect to be fired. If someone is consistently that slow, at most firms its intentional which directly ties to performance. You can’t separate good legal work and hours to evaluate performance. If x makes the best brief or best SPA but only does 1 a month when peers are doing x2 or x3 more, that’s a performance issue!

I mean, we’re taking issue because assuming that low hours are intentional is what lets firms get away with stealthing in the first place. It is in fact possible for someone to do good work and still not get enough hours for reasons *entirely out of their control and not related to their performance,* as much as you don’t want to believe it. Firing that person is stealthing someone.

Now maybe the people who posted here were slackers or did bad work and no one wanted them on their matters. But it’s also possible that they did good work and tried their best to get the hours but those hours just weren’t there, and their firms decided they needed to cut someone so picked them. We don’t know and if I were them I wouldn’t want to come back and say more either.

Dude above - how do you know it’s an otherwise busy firm?

[Anonymous User]

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

As was discussed above, "stealthed" does not at all exclude people who don't hit their hours. It would be a nearly useless term if it did, because almost nobody who hits their hours and is expected to continue doing so gets fired.

It *does* imply someone is not being fired for performance reasons. Associates can fall short of hours for reasons that are, or are not, their fault. Sure, bad performance can lead to low hours, but it's also not that unreasonable to think an associate in certain corporate groups might be well below target these days, especially someone who lateraled when firms were hiring anyone with a pulse and watched a lot of work dry up fast. There's no suggestion OP is making a habit out of turning down billable work because of the pro bono he did--most people who do the latter are not overloaded with the former.

If you are to take OP being told he did good work at face value, it's a textbook stealthing. Actually, maybe even a purer one than is typical, because many firms who fire a pile of people when work slows down claim it's for "performance reasons." Sure, they picked the bottom 10% to cut, but it's the same bottom 10% they were happy to keep around when business was gangbusters. For lots of people in the "performance" layoffs of late 2008, their firing was the first time the firm ever said anything negative about their work.

I think folks are taking issue that one can do good work at 100 hours a month and not expect to be fired. If someone is consistently that slow, at most firms its intentional which directly ties to performance. You can’t separate good legal work and hours to evaluate performance. If x makes the best brief or best SPA but only does 1 a month when peers are doing x2 or x3 more, that’s a performance issue!

I mean, we’re taking issue because assuming that low hours are intentional is what lets firms get away with stealthing in the first place. It is in fact possible for someone to do good work and still not get enough hours for reasons *entirely out of their control and not related to their performance,* as much as you don’t want to believe it. Firing that person is stealthing someone.

Now maybe the people who posted here were slackers or did bad work and no one wanted them on their matters. But it’s also possible that they did good work and tried their best to get the hours but those hours just weren’t there, and their firms decided they needed to cut someone so picked them. We don’t know and if I were them I wouldn’t want to come back and say more either.

Dude above - how do you know it’s an otherwise busy firm?

I'm the dude above. I'm inferring it from the fact that nowhere in this four page exchange has he said something like "our firm is imploding; the entire practice group is slow; things seem to be heading off a cliff; no one is busy so why was I singled out TLS bros!?!" which I think he would have if that were part of the context.

[nixy]

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

As was discussed above, "stealthed" does not at all exclude people who don't hit their hours. It would be a nearly useless term if it did, because almost nobody who hits their hours and is expected to continue doing so gets fired.

It *does* imply someone is not being fired for performance reasons. Associates can fall short of hours for reasons that are, or are not, their fault. Sure, bad performance can lead to low hours, but it's also not that unreasonable to think an associate in certain corporate groups might be well below target these days, especially someone who lateraled when firms were hiring anyone with a pulse and watched a lot of work dry up fast. There's no suggestion OP is making a habit out of turning down billable work because of the pro bono he did--most people who do the latter are not overloaded with the former.

If you are to take OP being told he did good work at face value, it's a textbook stealthing. Actually, maybe even a purer one than is typical, because many firms who fire a pile of people when work slows down claim it's for "performance reasons." Sure, they picked the bottom 10% to cut, but it's the same bottom 10% they were happy to keep around when business was gangbusters. For lots of people in the "performance" layoffs of late 2008, their firing was the first time the firm ever said anything negative about their work.

I think folks are taking issue that one can do good work at 100 hours a month and not expect to be fired. If someone is consistently that slow, at most firms its intentional which directly ties to performance. You can’t separate good legal work and hours to evaluate performance. If x makes the best brief or best SPA but only does 1 a month when peers are doing x2 or x3 more, that’s a performance issue!

I mean, we’re taking issue because assuming that low hours are intentional is what lets firms get away with stealthing in the first place. It is in fact possible for someone to do good work and still not get enough hours for reasons *entirely out of their control and not related to their performance,* as much as you don’t want to believe it. Firing that person is stealthing someone.

Now maybe the people who posted here were slackers or did bad work and no one wanted them on their matters. But it’s also possible that they did good work and tried their best to get the hours but those hours just weren’t there, and their firms decided they needed to cut someone so picked them. We don’t know and if I were them I wouldn’t want to come back and say more either.

Dude above - how do you know it’s an otherwise busy firm?

I'm the dude above. I'm inferring it from the fact that nowhere in this four page exchange has he said something like "our firm is imploding; the entire practice group is slow; things seem to be heading off a cliff; no one is busy so why was I singled out TLS bros!?!" which I think he would have if that were part of the context.

That’s fair, maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn’t given the need to get a new job and not get identified. I also don’t think “hours slowed down” is unambiguous or that an entire firm has to be imploding/everything heading off a cliff for stealthing to happen, but I get your logic.

[Anonymous User]

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

As was discussed above, "stealthed" does not at all exclude people who don't hit their hours. It would be a nearly useless term if it did, because almost nobody who hits their hours and is expected to continue doing so gets fired.

It *does* imply someone is not being fired for performance reasons. Associates can fall short of hours for reasons that are, or are not, their fault. Sure, bad performance can lead to low hours, but it's also not that unreasonable to think an associate in certain corporate groups might be well below target these days, especially someone who lateraled when firms were hiring anyone with a pulse and watched a lot of work dry up fast. There's no suggestion OP is making a habit out of turning down billable work because of the pro bono he did--most people who do the latter are not overloaded with the former.

If you are to take OP being told he did good work at face value, it's a textbook stealthing. Actually, maybe even a purer one than is typical, because many firms who fire a pile of people when work slows down claim it's for "performance reasons." Sure, they picked the bottom 10% to cut, but it's the same bottom 10% they were happy to keep around when business was gangbusters. For lots of people in the "performance" layoffs of late 2008, their firing was the first time the firm ever said anything negative about their work.

I think folks are taking issue that one can do good work at 100 hours a month and not expect to be fired. If someone is consistently that slow, at most firms its intentional which directly ties to performance. You can’t separate good legal work and hours to evaluate performance. If x makes the best brief or best SPA but only does 1 a month when peers are doing x2 or x3 more, that’s a performance issue!

I mean, we’re taking issue because assuming that low hours are intentional is what lets firms get away with stealthing in the first place. It is in fact possible for someone to do good work and still not get enough hours for reasons *entirely out of their control and not related to their performance,* as much as you don’t want to believe it. Firing that person is stealthing someone.

Now maybe the people who posted here were slackers or did bad work and no one wanted them on their matters. But it’s also possible that they did good work and tried their best to get the hours but those hours just weren’t there, and their firms decided they needed to cut someone so picked them. We don’t know and if I were them I wouldn’t want to come back and say more either.

Dude above - how do you know it’s an otherwise busy firm?

I'm the dude above. I'm inferring it from the fact that nowhere in this four page exchange has he said something like "our firm is imploding; the entire practice group is slow; things seem to be heading off a cliff; no one is busy so why was I singled out TLS bros!?!" which I think he would have if that were part of the context.

Right - we should all infer exactly what we want to (and what makes us feel better) from silence. Great evidentiary principle there.

This person has just lost a job and is trying to make sense of it. Providing every detail to anonymous randoms on the internet may not be their highest priority. They’re warning us that this is back and out there - much as we might like to delude ourselves otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

Again, this wasn’t getting stealthed, just as much as that law student wasn’t unfairly dismissed.

As was discussed above, "stealthed" does not at all exclude people who don't hit their hours. It would be a nearly useless term if it did, because almost nobody who hits their hours and is expected to continue doing so gets fired.

It *does* imply someone is not being fired for performance reasons. Associates can fall short of hours for reasons that are, or are not, their fault. Sure, bad performance can lead to low hours, but it's also not that unreasonable to think an associate in certain corporate groups might be well below target these days, especially someone who lateraled when firms were hiring anyone with a pulse and watched a lot of work dry up fast. There's no suggestion OP is making a habit out of turning down billable work because of the pro bono he did--most people who do the latter are not overloaded with the former.

If you are to take OP being told he did good work at face value, it's a textbook stealthing. Actually, maybe even a purer one than is typical, because many firms who fire a pile of people when work slows down claim it's for "performance reasons." Sure, they picked the bottom 10% to cut, but it's the same bottom 10% they were happy to keep around when business was gangbusters. For lots of people in the "performance" layoffs of late 2008, their firing was the first time the firm ever said anything negative about their work.

I think folks are taking issue that one can do good work at 100 hours a month and not expect to be fired. If someone is consistently that slow, at most firms its intentional which directly ties to performance. You can’t separate good legal work and hours to evaluate performance. If x makes the best brief or best SPA but only does 1 a month when peers are doing x2 or x3 more, that’s a performance issue!

I mean, we’re taking issue because assuming that low hours are intentional is what lets firms get away with stealthing in the first place. It is in fact possible for someone to do good work and still not get enough hours for reasons *entirely out of their control and not related to their performance,* as much as you don’t want to believe it. Firing that person is stealthing someone.

Now maybe the people who posted here were slackers or did bad work and no one wanted them on their matters. But it’s also possible that they did good work and tried their best to get the hours but those hours just weren’t there, and their firms decided they needed to cut someone so picked them. We don’t know and if I were them I wouldn’t want to come back and say more either.

Dude above - how do you know it’s an otherwise busy firm?

I'm the dude above. I'm inferring it from the fact that nowhere in this four page exchange has he said something like "our firm is imploding; the entire practice group is slow; things seem to be heading off a cliff; no one is busy so why was I singled out TLS bros!?!" which I think he would have if that were part of the context.

Right - we should all infer exactly what we want to (and what makes us feel better) from silence. Great evidentiary principle there.

This person has just lost a job and is trying to make sense of it. Providing every detail to anonymous randoms on the internet may not be their highest priority. They’re warning us that this is back and out there - much as we might like to delude ourselves otherwise.

Again, from all the info we have so far, they aren’t warning us about anything other than if you bill sub-100 hours to client work for many months on end, you’ll get fired. Holy shit, hold the presses, let me get AmLaw over here.

Also it’s much more than inference from “silence.” The OP has provided ample context about many things. The fact they haven’t once in the course of that happened to mention a minor detail like, you know, “btw our firm is collapsing so it’s not just me!” suggests he isn’t a trend but an outlier.

[Anonymous User]

There are now multiple posts on this board about people getting pushed out of their practice areas. This isn't about them anymore, it's about the broader market. Time to bundle up and try to pivot to Rx, I guess.

[Helicopter]

Biglaw is about an exchange of 1800 billable hours for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That’s it.

Also, Monochromatic Ouevre, your own post talks about “bottom 10%” getting let go, or mass layoffs (plural). You continually references groups. We haven’t seen that here.

Getting stealthed refers to ‘stealth layoffs’—-part of a larger batch of people being let go. It doesn’t refer to the firm doing an unannounced firing…because that is what every business does. It means something specific to the economy-wrapped model of biglaw ebbing and flowing with the economy. It’s a service industry with massive swings in headcount based on massive swings in the economy.

It’s not one individual saying they were doing mostly pro-bono for months, being given a silver parachute into a lower Vault firm, into mid-law or in-house. Firms were (and a lot still are) slammed.

I don’t see the need to defend a nameless individual that hasn’t supplied any information to cause ME to worry.

Because, that is what their post did. It shouted “STEALTH LAYOFFS ARE HERE”.

I WANT to be wrong, but like others have pointed out…this poster would have included: 1) that it was a part of something larger, 2) that it was mostly out of their control due to their 3) awesome working relationship and 4) billable hours prior. Otherwise, it’s fair to wonder out loud (that’s what we do on an Internet forum) whether those elements were present.

[Anonymous User]

There are now multiple posts on this board about people getting pushed out of their practice areas. This isn't about them anymore, it's about the broader market. Time to bundle up and try to pivot to Rx, I guess.

Where are these other posts? Interested in learning more.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

I always thought of a stealth layoff as one that's not done through the normal review process, and that is done in a way that's meant to hide that the person has been let go (e.g., continued presence on firm website, time period to find a new job, a payment in return for nondisclosure, a measure of secrecy on the firm's part regarding the fact that a person has been let go).

If that's the definition, then the OP satisfies it. Of course whoever is being stealthed is going to be considered a bottom performer in hours or by some other measure. That's who businesses let go first. I don't think the hours really play into whether a person has been "stealthed," unless the two things I mentioned above aren't true for the person.

I always thought people made a big deal out of stealth layoffs because they're an indicator that the firm or practice group isn't doing so hot--if things were better, the firm/practice would be able to supply more hours, be more willing to endure periods where a person is slow with the expectation that hours will pick up soon, and keep bottom performers.

If that's the case, then I think OP's post is a data point that at least one firm is conducting off-cycle stealth layoffs of a low-hour associate, and therefore thinks that is the right business decision for that firm in the current economic situation.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I think folks are taking issue that one can do good work at 100 hours a month and not expect to be fired.

No one anywhere ITT suggested someone should not be expected to be fired billing 100 a month.

If someone is consistently that slow, at most firms its intentional which directly ties to performance.

Unless, of course, it has to do with the firm's business and structure. Like, say, there's a slowdown in the credit markets right after a major boom that made firms overhire.

You can’t separate good legal work and hours to evaluate performance. If x makes the best brief or best SPA but only does 1 a month when peers are doing x2 or x3 more, that’s a performance issue!

Performance and hours are generally considered separate concepts because the former is considered within your control and the latter is generally someone else's call. It would be tautological to say someone with low hours is necessarily exhibiting low performance. Low performance may *cause* your hours to drop (or it might not), but your hours dropping does not necessarily indicate your performance is low.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Biglaw is about an exchange of 1800 billable hours for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That’s it.

Also, Monochromatic Ouevre, your own post talks about “bottom 10%” getting let go, or mass layoffs (plural). You continually references groups. We haven’t seen that here.

Getting stealthed refers to ‘stealth layoffs’—-part of a larger batch of people being let go. It doesn’t refer to the firm doing an unannounced firing…because that is what every business does. It means something specific to the economy-wrapped model of biglaw ebbing and flowing with the economy. It’s a service industry with massive swings in headcount based on massive swings in the economy.

There's absolutely no minimum number of people required for stealthing, and no requirement that stealth layoffs occur in batches. They often do--slowdowns in practices are obviously correlated--and of course the bigger the number of layoffs, the more likely you are to hear about it.

The key distinction is in the word *layoff*, which definitionally implies a termination that is for economic rather than performance issues. Yes, of course you have a more plausible claim that you really are just getting rid of bad apples when it's a smaller number. Yes, determining what counts as performance-based when bad performance is tolerated in good economic times is murky. As was said below, occurring outside the normal review process is a halfway decent indicator of that.

It’s not one individual saying they were doing mostly pro-bono for months, being given a silver parachute into a lower Vault firm, into mid-law or in-house. Firms were (and a lot still are) slammed.

Many practices that were slammed a year ago are now not slammed; and some of them are downright slow when you account for how many people were brought into them. Every slowdown hits some groups and areas harder than others.

I'm not telling you any of that to make you feel worried about your position, or anyone else's. I'm just suggesting that you may not be fully aware of when some other group at some other firm suddenly doesn't have enough to fill 2000 on everyone's plate, or why someone becomes the odd man out.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

For further reference to the above, the transactional area where I do ~80% of my work measures activity mainly on two metrics. The first was down 25% in Q1 ‘22 compared to ‘21, and the second was down 65%.

AFAIK no departures in the last 3-4 months have been non-voluntary, but we’re not replacing anyone who’s left. Not everyone’s gonna make hours, though it’s probably a relief for the guys who billed 2600+ on it last year. We’ll see what happens at year-end.

[Helicopter]

There's absolutely no minimum number of people required for stealthing,

Well, there is... 1.

and no requirement that stealth layoffs occur in batches. They often do--slowdowns in practices are obviously correlated--and of course the bigger the number of layoffs, the more likely you are to hear about it.

And here, I disagree too. I'm not saying it has to be a neat and tidy batch. But, stealing your percentage example, if 10% get laid off that looks a lot more like a firm conducting 'stealth layoffs' than just hearing from one OP (with a legit reason for a firm to thank and let go nicely--hours drive these decisions).

The key distinction is in the word *layoff*,

Again, I should be precise here. There is no such thing as a 'stealth layoff'--singularly or in the sporadic, isolated instance. That is diluting a term until it's no different than any regular performance firing.
The historical significance of the term is rooted in mass, unannounced layoffs of whole swaths or even small 'batches' of lawyers in previously busy practices. I am not saying OP isn't a canary in the coal mine, but this isn't definitive.

which definitionally implies a termination that is for economic rather than performance issues. Yes, of course you have a more plausible claim that you really are just getting rid of bad apples when it's a smaller number.

And there is the rub. The implication is something it may or may not be. People are legit debating in page 3 about the "value" of pro-bono to a biglaw firm. (Surprise, its not the financial model of biglaw!) It sounds, here, like OP was deluded into thinking that the firm was just going to keep paying them tens and tens of thousands of dollars to be a pro-bono attorney. That is performance related. It's performance related when the whole job a biglaw attorney IS BILLING HOURS.

Yes, determining what counts as performance-based when bad performance is tolerated in good economic times is murky.

It's not so murky as you are trying to make it. Biglaw is 1800 billable hours in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Not meeting that is performance related, when the only thing in Biglaw you are expected to perform is bill 1800 hours.

As was said below, occurring outside the normal review process is a halfway decent indicator of that.

I agree with you here. It's definitely an indicator something is off.

Many practices that were slammed a year ago are now not slammed; and some of them are downright slow when you account for how many people were brought into them. Every slowdown hits some groups and areas harder than others.

Absolutely, I appreciate your insight. I also really appreciate you taking the time to respond. I just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't want to completely hi-jack this thread and kill it.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

You don’t have to bill 1800 hours in biglaw, especially if you’re very junior. As you get more senior, low hours are both (1) more costly to the firm, since you have a higher salary and probably a private office, and (2) less justifiable, since seniority = higher demand and the ability to do more work autonomously.

[nixy]

Helicopter, what in the posting suggests pro bono attorney was turning down billable work to do pro bono, as opposed to filling their time with pro bono because they weren’t getting any other work? While they expressed frustration with the firm’s statements about counting pro bono not matching the reality, they also said that this wasn’t surprising. Not sure how that’s deluding oneself about the situation.

Also, what about the non-pro bono OP? There are two people here, so talking about “the” OP as if that addresses everything is confusing.

(Am in agreement with MO about numbers required. One person can be stealthed if their layoff is for economic rather than other reasons. Certainly, mass or batch stealthings have broader significance for understanding the market and more ominous implications for people at other firms/the profession as a whole, but that doesn’t make one person getting laid off less of a stealth layoff. It just means that that single stealthing is less likely to be a signal of an industry-wide recession/downturn, though of course it could still be depending on subsequent events. Just because people are most familiar with stealthing in the context of the Great Recession and Lathaming and so on doesn’t mean it can’t happen outside that context.)