Top Law Schools

From an AmLaw Daily article published today: The cuts to Gunderson’s most junior ranks came as a surprise to many, with two sources reporting that Kirkland & Ellis’ recent round of cuts also impacted first-year associates, in a new development in law firms’ efforts to trim ranks.

Does anyone have insight, even anecdotally, into how many first years they've observed having been cut? As an incoming Kirkland associate, I'm concerned.

.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:29 pm

You have every reason to be concerned. But it's really not just Kirkland. Several other firms have been ruthlessly laying off associates. Gunderson, Cooley, Ropes, W&C, Goodwin to name just a few. Depending on the severity of the firm's financial pressure, no class year is off limits from layoffs. Unless you can switch to a firm that traditionally doesn't lay off associates (I don't recall Skadden, STB, etc ever laying off associates but I could be wrong), which is very unrealistic in this economy, there's nothing you can do. I'd say you should just focus on the present.

I didn't think first years were typically on the chopping block. Hadn't heard of that being the case over the last decade anyway. Disheartening to say the least.

Am a Kirkland first year. Not heard of any of my classmates being laid off. Those who didn’t win the h1b visa lottery are being let go, though.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 08, 2023 3:43 am

Am a Kirkland first year. Not heard of any of my classmates being laid off. Those who didn’t win the h1b visa lottery are being let go, though.

They laid off a lot of associates globally. For example, they laid off 5 associates in their HK office.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:29 pm

You have every reason to be concerned. But it's really not just Kirkland. Several other firms have been ruthlessly laying off associates. Gunderson, Cooley, Ropes, W&C, Goodwin to name just a few. Depending on the severity of the firm's financial pressure, no class year is off limits from layoffs. Unless you can switch to a firm that traditionally doesn't lay off associates (I don't recall Skadden, STB, etc ever laying off associates but I could be wrong), which is very unrealistic in this economy, there's nothing you can do. I'd say you should just focus on the present.

Anyone remember how CSM, S&C or Davis Polk handled layoffs in 2008?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 08, 2023 11:04 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 07, 2023 2:29 pm

You have every reason to be concerned. But it's really not just Kirkland. Several other firms have been ruthlessly laying off associates. Gunderson, Cooley, Ropes, W&C, Goodwin to name just a few. Depending on the severity of the firm's financial pressure, no class year is off limits from layoffs. Unless you can switch to a firm that traditionally doesn't lay off associates (I don't recall Skadden, STB, etc ever laying off associates but I could be wrong), which is very unrealistic in this economy, there's nothing you can do. I'd say you should just focus on the present.

Anyone remember how CSM, S&C or Davis Polk handled layoffs in 2008?

They all stealthed. And so did Simpson. Not sure about Skadden, but they did offer all their associates paid deferrals in 2009 and a decent number took them.

None of them more than like 5%. And no one ever said anything about first years, which generally would have gotten out because it was unheard of before Latham.

These layoffs are far more aggressive in comparison to the magnitude of the "pressure." That's in quotation marks because a lot of firms in 2008 would have straight-up gone broke without cutting expenses in some way, and AFAIK no firm is struggling in nearly the same way. Kirkland's profits were *up* but $7.5M was apparently not enough. It's a fuck-you, plain and simple. Behave accordingly.