Stealth Layoff Firms Forum

[Anonymous User]

I think we're all aware of which biglaw firms have done open layoffs, but which firms have allegedly conducted stealth layoffs?

[Anonymous User]

More firms do stealth layoffs than open layoffs. Most firms conducted stealth or open layoffs in the first half of this year such that it's easier to make a list of ones that didn't conduct layoffs. Check https://www.lawlayoffs.com/

[Anonymous User]

More firms do stealth layoffs than open layoffs. Most firms conducted stealth or open layoffs in the first half of this year such that it's easier to make a list of ones that didn't conduct layoffs. Check https://www.lawlayoffs.com/

I saw it says that some firms laid off associates who didn't pass the Feb bar exam –– is this generally on the first-try or second-try? Also, do most firms only let associates take it twice?

[Anonymous User]

deleted for double post.

[Anonymous User]

More firms do stealth layoffs than open layoffs. Most firms conducted stealth or open layoffs in the first half of this year such that it's easier to make a list of ones that didn't conduct layoffs. Check https://www.lawlayoffs.com/

I saw it says that some firms laid off associates who didn't pass the Feb bar exam –– is this generally on the first-try or second-try? Also, do most firms only let associates take it twice?

I'm sure there are exceptions but the standard schedule is you graduate in the spring and take the bar in July. Anyone taking the bar in February probably failed once. Most firm policies are to give a second chance but not a third. This is actually a lot more generous than smaller firms, who will usually fired immediately if you don't pass (or even wait to hire until you pass). It's not unreasonable tbh, since being a lawyer is a prerequisite for the job.

Regardless of if you agree, a firm firing for failing twice is just business as usual.

[nealric]

More firms do stealth layoffs than open layoffs. Most firms conducted stealth or open layoffs in the first half of this year such that it's easier to make a list of ones that didn't conduct layoffs. Check https://www.lawlayoffs.com/

I saw it says that some firms laid off associates who didn't pass the Feb bar exam –– is this generally on the first-try or second-try? Also, do most firms only let associates take it twice?

I'm sure there are exceptions but the standard schedule is you graduate in the spring and take the bar in July. Anyone taking the bar in February probably failed once. Most firm policies are to give a second chance but not a third. This is actually a lot more generous than smaller firms, who will usually fired immediately if you don't pass (or even wait to hire until you pass). It's not unreasonable tbh, since being a lawyer is a prerequisite for the job.

Regardless of if you agree, a firm firing for failing twice is just business as usual.

Yes. February bar takers in biglaw are typically repeat takers (barring unusual circumstances). That's also why the February exam typically has much lower pass rates than July. It's always been common in biglaw for bar failures to be given a second chance but not a third. During the great recession, some firms fired first-time failures.

Anyhow, the thing with "stealth layoffs" from the perspective of an outsider considering what firm to work for is there's no clear delineation between regular performance-based attrition and stealth layoffs. There's a level of poor performance that most firms would let go of an associate regardless of economic climate. There are also mediocre associates that may be given a pass in a good economic climate but be let go during a downturn. Then there are true "stealth layoffs" when great associates who have received nothing but stellar reviews are suddenly told their performance is poor and they are being let go. The problem is, the only way you ever know about "stealth layoffs" is when the laid off associates complain, and you have no way of knowing whether they were really in the true "stealth layoff" category or not.

As a final note, keep in mind that these sorts of firings can be very practice group dependent. If a group is consistently slow and they have a large number of associates not hitting hours, then department heads will be under pressure to find a way to fix the situation. But another group in the same firm may be plenty busy and may even need to increase headcount. Right now, it seems a lot of the pain is centered on groups that do a lot of tech heavy transactional work.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Anyhow, the thing with "stealth layoffs" from the perspective of an outsider considering what firm to work for is there's no clear delineation between regular performance-based attrition and stealth layoffs. There's a level of poor performance that most firms would let go of an associate regardless of economic climate. There are also mediocre associates that may be given a pass in a good economic climate but be let go during a downturn. Then there are true "stealth layoffs" when great associates who have received nothing but stellar reviews are suddenly told their performance is poor and they are being let go. The problem is, the only way you ever know about "stealth layoffs" is when the laid off associates complain, and you have no way of knowing whether they were really in the true "stealth layoff" category or not.

It's especially fraught because people are incentivized to characterize their firing as a stealth layoff, regardless of how closely it resembles one

[Anonymous User]

Unless it’s a super small group with only one of each associate level and group is effectively getting cut, unfortunately every layoff has an element of performance to it.

People who are kept all have something that the laid off people don’t whether it’s better working relationships, work product, hours, or client development skills. There is someone in the room who fought to keep the people who weren’t cut.

[Anonymous User]

Unless it’s a super small group with only one of each associate level and group is effectively getting cut, unfortunately every layoff has an element of performance to it.

People who are kept all have something that the laid off people don’t whether it’s better working relationships, work product, hours, or client development skills. There is someone in the room who fought to keep the people who weren’t cut.

Your definition of “performance” would have to be broad enough to include partner blowjobs, but ok

[Anonymous User]

Unless it’s a super small group with only one of each associate level and group is effectively getting cut, unfortunately every layoff has an element of performance to it.

People who are kept all have something that the laid off people don’t whether it’s better working relationships, work product, hours, or client development skills. There is someone in the room who fought to keep the people who weren’t cut.

Your definition of “performance” would have to be broad enough to include partner blowjobs, but ok

If an associate that’s reportedly blowing a partner is the reason someone says they got “stealthed” I’d be inclined to believe there was some sort of issue with the person getting stealthed.

[Anonymous User]

Unless it’s a super small group with only one of each associate level and group is effectively getting cut, unfortunately every layoff has an element of performance to it.

People who are kept all have something that the laid off people don’t whether it’s better working relationships, work product, hours, or client development skills. There is someone in the room who fought to keep the people who weren’t cut.

Your definition of “performance” would have to be broad enough to include partner blowjobs, but ok

If an associate that’s reportedly blowing a partner is the reason someone says they got “stealthed” I’d be inclined to believe there was some sort of issue with the person getting stealthed.

The point is, the reasons a partner might “fight to keep” an associate could be arbitrary and unrelated to performance. And then which partners show up or speak up is arbitrary. Someone could do great work but for a partner who doesn’t go to bat for anyone.

In short, I would not be quick to blame associates who are pushed out of firms. It could happen to anyone.

[Anonymous User]

Unless it’s a super small group with only one of each associate level and group is effectively getting cut, unfortunately every layoff has an element of performance to it.

People who are kept all have something that the laid off people don’t whether it’s better working relationships, work product, hours, or client development skills. There is someone in the room who fought to keep the people who weren’t cut.

Your definition of “performance” would have to be broad enough to include partner blowjobs, but ok

If an associate that’s reportedly blowing a partner is the reason someone says they got “stealthed” I’d be inclined to believe there was some sort of issue with the person getting stealthed.

The point is, the reasons a partner might “fight to keep” an associate could be arbitrary and unrelated to performance. And then which partners show up or speak up is arbitrary. Someone could do great work but for a partner who doesn’t go to bat for anyone.

In short, I would not be quick to blame associates who are pushed out of firms. It could happen to anyone.

I mostly agree with this, but I think the distinction here is between performance and ability. Someone who gets pushed out because they don't "blow" partners, who does great work but for one partner who doesn't go to bat for anyone or doesn't have the pull to convince others, may have great ability as a lawyer but may not have performed as well as other associates in terms of developing working relationships and negotiating the dynamics a particular firm. I don't mean this in a judgy way b/c 1) I suck at this, personally, and 2) sometimes there really is nothing an associate can do ("fit" is a dumb criterion but it's still real and it gets used against people). And these kinds of assessments can be subjective in terms of which qualities get valued most. But in the end it is the firm that decides what good performance means.

That doesn't mean I "blame" an associate who gets pushed out because someone has to be ranked last, so to speak, and in many cases where firms are contracting for economic reasons, the "last-ranked" person is still a great lawyer with the ability to succeed in many settings. Dumb analogy, but the person who comes in last in the 100 yard dash at the Olympics still moves pretty fucking fast and is a pretty fucking elite athlete.

The problem with stealth layoffs is that I think everyone understands that in a bad economy, firms will push people out b/c they have to (or think they do), and so while the layoff is "performance" based in that they push out who they think are their least "successful" associates, it doesn't reflect strongly on *ability* because everyone knows good people will get pushed out. But that person by definition is stuck looking for a new job in a crappy economy and competing with other great people who got pushed out in the same way. Whereas when someone gets pushed out during a boom economy, it's probably easier to assume that there really was a more objective issue with their performance, but they may have an easier time getting a new job because firms are desperate for bodies and not pushing as many people out.

And then there's the middle ground where an individual firm may need to push people out for its own economic reasons that aren't quite in step with the overall economy (and they also want to conceal any economic issues), so it's harder to know what that kind of layoff represents with regard to performance/ability, which is another crappy situation and probably the most "stealth" of layoffs.

So I think saying that performance is always an element of someone getting pushed out doesn't mean that the person getting pushed out is a bad lawyer or that getting pushed out was merited by the quality of that person's work. Just that in the context of that particular firm, the firm was able to identify some reason to keep others over them.