Stealth layoffs rumors Forum

[Anonymous User]

There appear to be rampant rumors about stealth layoffs occurring at firms on Fishbowl and Reddit. I haven’t seen much discussion here outside of Goodwin and I’ve seen very little corroboration along with strong pushback against these claims. What are you all seeing/hearing at your firms and which firms are bleeding associates?

Also, since these layoffs often come with 3+ months to leave, will we not have a good idea of significant movement until a few months from now?

[Anonymous User]

Is it possible that we're just back to normal up or out so to speak. Like from 2017-2021, firms had so much work to go around that they might as well keep senior associates who aren't going to make counsel or partner around an extra few years. Now, with work not being as plentiful maybe firms are just back to their old ways of trimming the fat at each subsequent level and associates who weren't around for the old days are interpreting that as stealth layoffs. FWIW, I'm a junior so I don't have much comparison experience at all just hypothesizing.

[Anonymous User]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

[Anonymous User]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

If there is any sort of "stealthing" I suspect it's going to be in this vein. The legions of middling law students and laterals that were pulled in over the past 2.5 years to help with transactional work are going to be unwound, which, reminder, is exactly what everyone predicted would happen when things settled down.

If we start hearing stories about high-performing, non-lateral associates or junior partners suddenly being given the talk, then I'll start to worry. If the next six months is full of tales about TTT grads being told to take a walk because SPAC work has dried up, I'll be surprised exactly 0% and it should give no one (not in that group) cause for concern.

[Anonymous User]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

If there is any sort of "stealthing" I suspect it's going to be in this vein. The legions of middling law students and laterals that were pulled in over the past 2.5 years to help with transactional work are going to be unwound, which, reminder, is exactly what everyone predicted would happen when things settled down.

If we start hearing stories about high-performing, non-lateral associates or junior partners suddenly being given the talk, then I'll start to worry. If the next six months is full of tales about TTT grads being told to take a walk because SPAC work has dried up, I'll be surprised exactly 0% and it should give no one (not in that group) cause for concern.

Two questions:

(1) If all things equal, is it actually more likely that an associate from a lower ranked school would get let go before an associate from a higher ranked school? I am a bit surprised to hear that school rank continues to affect life at this point.

(2). Do people think that firms that were less reliant on SPAC work over the last few years are less likely to slash associates at this point.

[Anonymous User]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

If there is any sort of "stealthing" I suspect it's going to be in this vein. The legions of middling law students and laterals that were pulled in over the past 2.5 years to help with transactional work are going to be unwound, which, reminder, is exactly what everyone predicted would happen when things settled down.

If we start hearing stories about high-performing, non-lateral associates or junior partners suddenly being given the talk, then I'll start to worry. If the next six months is full of tales about TTT grads being told to take a walk because SPAC work has dried up, I'll be surprised exactly 0% and it should give no one (not in that group) cause for concern.

Two questions:

(1) If all things equal, is it actually more likely that an associate from a lower ranked school would get let go before an associate from a higher ranked school? I am a bit surprised to hear that school rank continues to affect life at this point.

(2). Do people think that firms that were less reliant on SPAC work over the last few years are less likely to slash associates at this point.

This isn't a Tulane vs. Columbia thing. The idea is that, in the past 2+ years, some firms in the V50 have brought on a slew of grads and laterals from places where they traditionally wouldn't recruit from as warm bodies for transactional work and those people are going to be obviously first on the chopping block particularly since most of whatever "slow down" is happening is a slow down in the practices that were on fire for the past couple years. Generally speaking it's the firms that hired a million warm bodies to meet that sort of transient (but lucrative) demand as exemplified in the SPAC space (but there are other examples--loading up for debt offering work; merger work; bankruptcy work) that are most likely to now cut the fat.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Some heads may roll at the end of the calendar year. Not much is happening right now in terms of layoffs.

[Anonymous User]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

If there is any sort of "stealthing" I suspect it's going to be in this vein. The legions of middling law students and laterals that were pulled in over the past 2.5 years to help with transactional work are going to be unwound, which, reminder, is exactly what everyone predicted would happen when things settled down.

If we start hearing stories about high-performing, non-lateral associates or junior partners suddenly being given the talk, then I'll start to worry. If the next six months is full of tales about TTT grads being told to take a walk because SPAC work has dried up, I'll be surprised exactly 0% and it should give no one (not in that group) cause for concern.

Two questions:

(1) If all things equal, is it actually more likely that an associate from a lower ranked school would get let go before an associate from a higher ranked school? I am a bit surprised to hear that school rank continues to affect life at this point.

(2). Do people think that firms that were less reliant on SPAC work over the last few years are less likely to slash associates at this point.

This isn't a Tulane vs. Columbia thing. The idea is that, in the past 2+ years, some firms in the V50 have brought on a slew of grads and laterals from places where they traditionally wouldn't recruit from as warm bodies for transactional work and those people are going to be obviously first on the chopping block particularly since most of whatever "slow down" is happening is a slow down in the practices that were on fire for the past couple years. Generally speaking it's the firms that hired a million warm bodies to meet that sort of transient (but lucrative) demand as exemplified in the SPAC space (but there are other examples--loading up for debt offering work; merger work; bankruptcy work) that are most likely to now cut the fat.

If flagging laterals or folks from lower tier schools is code for doing bad work then I agree if you are doing bad work it’s most certainly going to put the light on you like never before. I think folks ITT are putting far too much emphasis on credentials given how random these decisions can be.

All things being equal between two attys the decision will either be a toss up or made from outside a department without any knowledge of the person being laid off.

[Anonymous User]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

If there is any sort of "stealthing" I suspect it's going to be in this vein. The legions of middling law students and laterals that were pulled in over the past 2.5 years to help with transactional work are going to be unwound, which, reminder, is exactly what everyone predicted would happen when things settled down.

If we start hearing stories about high-performing, non-lateral associates or junior partners suddenly being given the talk, then I'll start to worry. If the next six months is full of tales about TTT grads being told to take a walk because SPAC work has dried up, I'll be surprised exactly 0% and it should give no one (not in that group) cause for concern.

Two questions:

(1) If all things equal, is it actually more likely that an associate from a lower ranked school would get let go before an associate from a higher ranked school? I am a bit surprised to hear that school rank continues to affect life at this point.

(2). Do people think that firms that were less reliant on SPAC work over the last few years are less likely to slash associates at this point.

This isn't a Tulane vs. Columbia thing. The idea is that, in the past 2+ years, some firms in the V50 have brought on a slew of grads and laterals from places where they traditionally wouldn't recruit from as warm bodies for transactional work and those people are going to be obviously first on the chopping block particularly since most of whatever "slow down" is happening is a slow down in the practices that were on fire for the past couple years. Generally speaking it's the firms that hired a million warm bodies to meet that sort of transient (but lucrative) demand as exemplified in the SPAC space (but there are other examples--loading up for debt offering work; merger work; bankruptcy work) that are most likely to now cut the fat.

I don't think this is true at all. It's possible that sometimes there is a correlation (not causation) between school rank or prior firm and quality of work. But if a graduate from [pick your mediocre/low tier law school] that lateralled from a v75 firm to the v25 to do standard M&A (and not just SPAC work) is absolutely crushing it on the normal deals and is generally liked by the partners and everyone they work with/for, but there is a harvard grad that's meh and occasionally goes dark over the weekend and also turns in mediocre work product and has been at the firm since 2L OCI, the harvard kid is out the door if someone has to go. Credentials don't matter at that point if people have had enough time to prove whether they're good/bad to have on your matter.

[Anonymous User]

It's not polite to notice but it is true that some of the lesser credentialed hires are just not as good. If you're doing well then nobody cares where you're from. If you're struggling, they might.

[veers]

It's not polite to notice but it is true that some of the lesser credentialed hires are just not as good. If you're doing well then nobody cares where you're from. If you're struggling, they might.

I mean is it supposed to be some huge suprise that your average Harvard grad is going to do better work in biglaw than your average T4 whatever grad? Obviously there are individual variations, but there is a reason the v10 and the high-paying boutiques recruit from the places that they do.

[Anonymous User]

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with others on here. I’m in ECEB and firms hired a ton of TTT/TTTT graduates (LLM from NYU/GT) from M&A/International tax groups at the Big4. My friends at other firms and I have compared notes, and across the board, the people who were hired during Covid from lower ranked schools generally are not as good. Part of that is the firms’ fault since I don’t think any of our firms properly trained these laterals (most of whom knew nothing about ECEB prior to starting).

So I think it’s not so much causation as it is correlation, but because most of the atypical hires were Covid hires who weren’t properly trained, they’ll unfortunately probably be shown the door first.

Also, firms like to market associates from top schools/programs, so all things being equal, the HLS grad will be kept instead of the random TTTT grad who hustled.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

If there is any sort of "stealthing" I suspect it's going to be in this vein. The legions of middling law students and laterals that were pulled in over the past 2.5 years to help with transactional work are going to be unwound, which, reminder, is exactly what everyone predicted would happen when things settled down.

If we start hearing stories about high-performing, non-lateral associates or junior partners suddenly being given the talk, then I'll start to worry. If the next six months is full of tales about TTT grads being told to take a walk because SPAC work has dried up, I'll be surprised exactly 0% and it should give no one (not in that group) cause for concern.

Two questions:

(1) If all things equal, is it actually more likely that an associate from a lower ranked school would get let go before an associate from a higher ranked school? I am a bit surprised to hear that school rank continues to affect life at this point.

(2). Do people think that firms that were less reliant on SPAC work over the last few years are less likely to slash associates at this point.

This isn't a Tulane vs. Columbia thing. The idea is that, in the past 2+ years, some firms in the V50 have brought on a slew of grads and laterals from places where they traditionally wouldn't recruit from as warm bodies for transactional work and those people are going to be obviously first on the chopping block particularly since most of whatever "slow down" is happening is a slow down in the practices that were on fire for the past couple years. Generally speaking it's the firms that hired a million warm bodies to meet that sort of transient (but lucrative) demand as exemplified in the SPAC space (but there are other examples--loading up for debt offering work; merger work; bankruptcy work) that are most likely to now cut the fat.

I don't think this is true at all. It's possible that sometimes there is a correlation (not causation) between school rank or prior firm and quality of work. But if a graduate from [pick your mediocre/low tier law school] that lateralled from a v75 firm to the v25 to do standard M&A (and not just SPAC work) is absolutely crushing it on the normal deals and is generally liked by the partners and everyone they work with/for, but there is a harvard grad that's meh and occasionally goes dark over the weekend and also turns in mediocre work product and has been at the firm since 2L OCI, the harvard kid is out the door if someone has to go. Credentials don't matter at that point if people have had enough time to prove whether they're good/bad to have on your matter.

But the credentials matter again when it’s time to find another job. Hard to assess whether someone was good at their last firm, so credentials are over-weighted.

[nealric]

I know someone at a V50 firm who was recently told to find other work (with a few months runway). This person was hired less than a year ago when corporate associates were being hired like crazy. AFAIK this person's work product was fine at the firm before the current one. My understanding is the reasons given by the firm was the drop in work to go around.

If there is any sort of "stealthing" I suspect it's going to be in this vein. The legions of middling law students and laterals that were pulled in over the past 2.5 years to help with transactional work are going to be unwound, which, reminder, is exactly what everyone predicted would happen when things settled down.

If we start hearing stories about high-performing, non-lateral associates or junior partners suddenly being given the talk, then I'll start to worry. If the next six months is full of tales about TTT grads being told to take a walk because SPAC work has dried up, I'll be surprised exactly 0% and it should give no one (not in that group) cause for concern.

Two questions:

(1) If all things equal, is it actually more likely that an associate from a lower ranked school would get let go before an associate from a higher ranked school? I am a bit surprised to hear that school rank continues to affect life at this point.

(2). Do people think that firms that were less reliant on SPAC work over the last few years are less likely to slash associates at this point.

This isn't a Tulane vs. Columbia thing. The idea is that, in the past 2+ years, some firms in the V50 have brought on a slew of grads and laterals from places where they traditionally wouldn't recruit from as warm bodies for transactional work and those people are going to be obviously first on the chopping block particularly since most of whatever "slow down" is happening is a slow down in the practices that were on fire for the past couple years. Generally speaking it's the firms that hired a million warm bodies to meet that sort of transient (but lucrative) demand as exemplified in the SPAC space (but there are other examples--loading up for debt offering work; merger work; bankruptcy work) that are most likely to now cut the fat.

I don't think this is true at all. It's possible that sometimes there is a correlation (not causation) between school rank or prior firm and quality of work. But if a graduate from [pick your mediocre/low tier law school] that lateralled from a v75 firm to the v25 to do standard M&A (and not just SPAC work) is absolutely crushing it on the normal deals and is generally liked by the partners and everyone they work with/for, but there is a harvard grad that's meh and occasionally goes dark over the weekend and also turns in mediocre work product and has been at the firm since 2L OCI, the harvard kid is out the door if someone has to go. Credentials don't matter at that point if people have had enough time to prove whether they're good/bad to have on your matter.

I agree that an HLS slacker might be let go over a T2 superstar, but I don't think that sort of dichotomy is all that common in practice.