Are incoming (Class of '23) associates safe? Or should they be worried? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Basically the title.

[Anonymous User]

What's the point in worrying? Nobody can predict a recession, and nobody knows how firms will react, so what's the point in guesswork? I understand stressing about OCI, grades, etc., but stressing about the legal market in September '23 is pointless because we don't know and there's nothing you can do now.*

Anyway, to answer your question: no, c/o '23 is absolutely not safe. In '08 Latham (and other firms) rescinded offers to incoming associates, so if history serves as a guide then c/o '23 could be on the chopping block this time around. I presume that's precisely the scenario you're worrying about being worried about? But other classes were pushed out, too. So if you're asking whether you need to be more worried than anybody else, the answer is who TF knows. But to be clear, nobody is "safe" in a recession. Even partners (many firms went under, after all).

To reiterate what's already been discussed in other threads, the source of law firm profitability has shifted from the pre-'08 armies of juniors to present-day high billing seniors/counsels/NEPs, so there's an argument that today's juniors are even more at risk. But we don't really know what a recession will look like or what the recession-era work/clients will require, and I can see a world where penny wise, dollar stupid in house counsel start refusing to pay near-partner rates for non-partners and the industry shifts back to leverage driven profits.

*Except if you're in Shearman's c/o '23 - those folks should absolutely be looking for other employment as this year's bonus debacle and failed merger attempt suggests significant financial troubles. Even if things start looking up, I wouldn't want to be at a firm that's so readily screws over its associates for a partner-level problem.

[Anonymous User]

What's the point in worrying? Nobody can predict a recession, and nobody knows how firms will react, so what's the point in guesswork? I understand stressing about OCI, grades, etc., but stressing about the legal market in September '23 is pointless because we don't know and there's nothing you can do now.*

Anyway, to answer your question: no, c/o '23 is absolutely not safe. In '08 Latham (and other firms) rescinded offers to incoming associates, so if history serves as a guide then c/o '23 could be on the chopping block this time around. I presume that's precisely the scenario you're worrying about being worried about? But other classes were pushed out, too. So if you're asking whether you need to be more worried than anybody else, the answer is who TF knows. But to be clear, nobody is "safe" in a recession. Even partners (many firms went under, after all).

To reiterate what's already been discussed in other threads, the source of law firm profitability has shifted from the pre-'08 armies of juniors to present-day high billing seniors/counsels/NEPs, so there's an argument that today's juniors are even more at risk. But we don't really know what a recession will look like or what the recession-era work/clients will require, and I can see a world where penny wise, dollar stupid in house counsel start refusing to pay near-partner rates for non-partners and the industry shifts back to leverage driven profits.

*Except if you're in Shearman's c/o '23 - those folks should absolutely be looking for other employment as this year's bonus debacle and failed merger attempt suggests significant financial troubles. Even if things start looking up, I wouldn't want to be at a firm that's so readily screws over its associates for a partner-level problem.

But are incoming associate rescissions commonplace in recessions? Or was this phenomenon unique to the GFC?

[Wubbles]

What's the point in worrying? Nobody can predict a recession, and nobody knows how firms will react, so what's the point in guesswork? I understand stressing about OCI, grades, etc., but stressing about the legal market in September '23 is pointless because we don't know and there's nothing you can do now.*

Anyway, to answer your question: no, c/o '23 is absolutely not safe. In '08 Latham (and other firms) rescinded offers to incoming associates, so if history serves as a guide then c/o '23 could be on the chopping block this time around. I presume that's precisely the scenario you're worrying about being worried about? But other classes were pushed out, too. So if you're asking whether you need to be more worried than anybody else, the answer is who TF knows. But to be clear, nobody is "safe" in a recession. Even partners (many firms went under, after all).

To reiterate what's already been discussed in other threads, the source of law firm profitability has shifted from the pre-'08 armies of juniors to present-day high billing seniors/counsels/NEPs, so there's an argument that today's juniors are even more at risk. But we don't really know what a recession will look like or what the recession-era work/clients will require, and I can see a world where penny wise, dollar stupid in house counsel start refusing to pay near-partner rates for non-partners and the industry shifts back to leverage driven profits.

*Except if you're in Shearman's c/o '23 - those folks should absolutely be looking for other employment as this year's bonus debacle and failed merger attempt suggests significant financial troubles. Even if things start looking up, I wouldn't want to be at a firm that's so readily screws over its associates for a partner-level problem.

But are incoming associate rescissions commonplace in recessions? Or was this phenomenon unique to the GFC?

The Biglaw model is so different now than the previous recessions I don't think they are very helpful to look at. Personally I don't think rescissions are very likely this time around except at truly crashing firms where the associates and partners are getting canned left and right. More likely that firms learned that deferring start dates into oblivion is the better option both for flexibility to hire and optics.

[Anonymous User]

But are incoming associate rescissions commonplace in recessions? Or was this phenomenon unique to the GFC?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you trying to imply that if incoming associate offer rescissions only ever happened during the GFC then it's probably an outlier? Or are you trying to ask whether there was something unique about the GFC that moved firms to rescind offers for incoming associates, as opposed to responding another way?

If the former, I disagree with the premise. The field has changed significantly over the last 20-30 years, notably away from a paternalistic "we take care of our own" mentality toward an incessant focus on increasing PPP. So I'd say the GFC is our best data point in predicting what will happen for future recessions. Looking backward isn't going to help much. Everybody seems to think Latham's recruiting suffered for being the most notable example of rescinding offers, but their continued success suggests otherwise (even if some, like myself, refused to consider them on principle).

If the later, then I'm afraid you're overcomplicating it. In '08 work dried up, so law firms (like everyone else) responded by laying off workers who had no work to do, including incoming associates. I don't think there's anything unique to that recession that forced firms to fire incoming associates as opposed to others (or not at all). Even assuming '08 is an historical outlier, it probably has more to do with changes in the legal industry than anything unique to the nature of the GFC itself. And again, perhaps the recent shift toward retaining top dollar associates/NEPs puts incoming associates in an even worse position now than in '08. But IDK whether and how the next recession will shake up the legal industry, so there's no way of knowing if this next one differs from '08 in a way that would make your job safer than mine.

What are you trying to accomplish here? This is all so speculative that there really isn't anything someone can say that will make you feel better. If you want to worry, go ahead. But trying to split hairs about how much you should be worried is an exercise in futility.

[lawlzschool]

Absolutely no way to know this or predict what could happen. At this time in 2020, who could have predicted the response to COVID? At this time in 2022, who could have predicted the economic slowdown or that Russia would invade Ukraine? Even if that could be predicted, any firm's response is specific to that firm and your area of practice.

Probably best to just realize you have no control and enjoy your 3L year. Take a vacation, join some IM sports teams, attend every bar review, cherish free time... but don't dwell on this.

[Anonymous User]

Absolutely no way to know this or predict what could happen. At this time in 2020, who could have predicted the response to COVID? At this time in 2022, who could have predicted the economic slowdown or that Russia would invade Ukraine? Even if that could be predicted, any firm's response is specific to that firm and your area of practice.

Probably best to just realize you have no control and enjoy your 3L year. Take a vacation, join some IM sports teams, attend every bar review, cherish free time... but don't dwell on this.

I liquidated all of my stocks at this time last year, so to answer your question, I foresaw it.

Also, we all knew that Russia would invade Ukraine once Sleepy's deputy VP couldn't keep her mouth shut about encouraging another straggler country to join NATO.

[Anonymous User]

Absolutely no way to know this or predict what could happen. At this time in 2020, who could have predicted the response to COVID? At this time in 2022, who could have predicted the economic slowdown or that Russia would invade Ukraine? Even if that could be predicted, any firm's response is specific to that firm and your area of practice.

Probably best to just realize you have no control and enjoy your 3L year. Take a vacation, join some IM sports teams, attend every bar review, cherish free time... but don't dwell on this.

I liquidated all of my stocks at this time last year, so to answer your question, I foresaw it.

Also, we all knew that Russia would invade Ukraine once Sleepy's deputy VP couldn't keep her mouth shut about encouraging another straggler country to join NATO.

Lmao dude, 8/10 troll. I fell for it at first but this is too much.

If you're so good at telling the future then shouldn't you know the answer to your question?

/thread

Edit: accidental anon--this is lawlz

[Anonymous User]

Absolutely no way to know this or predict what could happen. At this time in 2020, who could have predicted the response to COVID? At this time in 2022, who could have predicted the economic slowdown or that Russia would invade Ukraine? Even if that could be predicted, any firm's response is specific to that firm and your area of practice.

Probably best to just realize you have no control and enjoy your 3L year. Take a vacation, join some IM sports teams, attend every bar review, cherish free time... but don't dwell on this.

I liquidated all of my stocks at this time last year, so to answer your question, I foresaw it.

Also, we all knew that Russia would invade Ukraine once Sleepy's deputy VP couldn't keep her mouth shut about encouraging another straggler country to join NATO.

Then by all means, please go ahead and enlighten us as to when the recession will actually hit and which law firms will be laying off incoming/existing associates.

I thought not.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I think people put way too many eggs in the biglaw basket. It’s dumb for kids to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars and then expect biglaw jobs (mostly in VHCOL or HCOL locations) to bail them out.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Type A T14 grinders have spent most of their lives working hard to improve their perceived prospects and tend not to have much experience in situations where you simply are either fucked or not fucked and nothing you can do will make it better.