Anyone in biglaw get a pay cut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I am in the L&E group, which has been busy. Practice group leader told an of counsel in the group that the firm is seriously looking at furloughs and layoffs, including for partners without a 100% equity interest in the firm.

I’m a traditional labor lawyer and service the book of a fairly of a fairly big rainmaker so I hopefully have some job protection, but who knows. The employment litigators have to be fairly worried right now.

Haven't they been busy counseling clients on FFCRA, CARES, WARN, furloughs, unemployment, severance agreements? The ones I know have been. I can see why traditional labor would not be as busy with manufacturing shut down.

It depends. If you are a pure litigator, you really aren’t that qualified to do the counseling side as they are very different skill sets. I would expect the litigation to heat up at some point, but it will be hard to prove that layoffs were X protected class related, when it will be easy to point to the pandemic.

OP here. at my firm, the employment people do both. i suppose they call people in from the litigation group from time to time (who definitely aren't qualified to give advice) in certain cases. lol at biglaw litigation in general. we in the traditional labor subgroup (or whatever one properly calls it) have more "courtroom" experience than most of the litigators at my firm because we try cases all the time before the NLRB, as well as arbitrations (although those can get awfully informal and start not to resemble a court proceeding).

Uh, NLRB hearings are semi-informal too.

they're formal enough, in that the rules of evidence are generally strictly enforced.

they certainly serve as better courtroom experience than papering a lawsuit, depositions and settling after your MSJ gets denied.

As in, better than the zero courtroom experience this requires. Sometimes plaintiffs' attorneys settle these cases for too little too quickly. If they have a decent case, they can get past the motion for summary judgment and settle for more or go to trial. Of course, this involves doing more work, and early settlement requires less work on the plaintiffs' part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I am in the L&E group, which has been busy. Practice group leader told an of counsel in the group that the firm is seriously looking at furloughs and layoffs, including for partners without a 100% equity interest in the firm.

I’m a traditional labor lawyer and service the book of a fairly of a fairly big rainmaker so I hopefully have some job protection, but who knows. The employment litigators have to be fairly worried right now.

Haven't they been busy counseling clients on FFCRA, CARES, WARN, furloughs, unemployment, severance agreements? The ones I know have been. I can see why traditional labor would not be as busy with manufacturing shut down.

It depends. If you are a pure litigator, you really aren’t that qualified to do the counseling side as they are very different skill sets. I would expect the litigation to heat up at some point, but it will be hard to prove that layoffs were X protected class related, when it will be easy to point to the pandemic.

OP here. at my firm, the employment people do both. i suppose they call people in from the litigation group from time to time (who definitely aren't qualified to give advice) in certain cases. lol at biglaw litigation in general. we in the traditional labor subgroup (or whatever one properly calls it) have more "courtroom" experience than most of the litigators at my firm because we try cases all the time before the NLRB, as well as arbitrations (although those can get awfully informal and start not to resemble a court proceeding).

Uh, NLRB hearings are semi-informal too.

they're formal enough, in that the rules of evidence are generally strictly enforced. they certainly serve as better courtroom experience than papering a lawsuit, depositions and settling after your MSJ gets denied.

true that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I am in the L&E group, which has been busy. Practice group leader told an of counsel in the group that the firm is seriously looking at furloughs and layoffs, including for partners without a 100% equity interest in the firm.

I’m a traditional labor lawyer and service the book of a fairly of a fairly big rainmaker so I hopefully have some job protection, but who knows. The employment litigators have to be fairly worried right now.

Haven't they been busy counseling clients on FFCRA, CARES, WARN, furloughs, unemployment, severance agreements? The ones I know have been. I can see why traditional labor would not be as busy with manufacturing shut down.

It depends. If you are a pure litigator, you really aren’t that qualified to do the counseling side as they are very different skill sets. I would expect the litigation to heat up at some point, but it will be hard to prove that layoffs were X protected class related, when it will be easy to point to the pandemic.

OP here. at my firm, the employment people do both. i suppose they call people in from the litigation group from time to time (who definitely aren't qualified to give advice) in certain cases. lol at biglaw litigation in general. we in the traditional labor subgroup (or whatever one properly calls it) have more "courtroom" experience than most of the litigators at my firm because we try cases all the time before the NLRB, as well as arbitrations (although those can get awfully informal and start not to resemble a court proceeding).

Uh, NLRB hearings are semi-informal too.

they're formal enough, in that the rules of evidence are generally strictly enforced.

they certainly serve as better courtroom experience than papering a lawsuit, depositions and settling after your MSJ gets denied.

As in, better than the zero courtroom experience this requires. Sometimes plaintiffs' attorneys settle these cases for too little too quickly. If they have a decent case, they can get past the motion for summary judgment and settle for more or go to trial. Of course, this involves doing more work, and early settlement requires less work on the plaintiffs' part.

speaking of plaintiffs' attorneys, most of the people on that side have zero courtroom experience also. lots of plaintiff-side employment firms are just settlement mills that file volumes of nuisance bullshit cases. if you get enough of those, it probably adds up to a decent living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though."

Some will do it to protect partners whose practices have slowed down, but passing that associate's work on to the partner.

I suspect that unless our economy does a sharp "V", review time at big law will be ugly, with associates, of counsel and some non-equity partners getting false and overly-negative reviews in order to set them up for performance-based layoffs.

Hopefully not. Why bother with this charade, when when they're at-will employees, and the firm can just "blame the economy."?

Because law firms care very deeply about the perception that they're wildly profitable, even if that's not true. From a big law firm's perspective, it is infinitely better to gin up a reason to fire an associate who is actually performing decently than it is to acknowledge that the firm has money problems and needs to lay people off. This is precisely what Latham & Watkins did during the Great Recession and that reputation has followed them for the past decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though."

Some will do it to protect partners whose practices have slowed down, but passing that associate's work on to the partner.

I suspect that unless our economy does a sharp "V", review time at big law will be ugly, with associates, of counsel and some non-equity partners getting false and overly-negative reviews in order to set them up for performance-based layoffs.

Hopefully not. Why bother with this charade, when when they're at-will employees, and the firm can just "blame the economy."?

Because law firms care very deeply about the perception that they're wildly profitable, even if that's not true. From a big law firm's perspective, it is infinitely better to gin up a reason to fire an associate who is actually performing decently than it is to acknowledge that the firm has money problems and needs to lay people off. This is precisely what Latham & Watkins did during the Great Recession and that reputation has followed them for the past decade.

Are biglaw attorneys being Lathamed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though."

Some will do it to protect partners whose practices have slowed down, but passing that associate's work on to the partner.

I suspect that unless our economy does a sharp "V", review time at big law will be ugly, with associates, of counsel and some non-equity partners getting false and overly-negative reviews in order to set them up for performance-based layoffs.

Hopefully not. Why bother with this charade, when when they're at-will employees, and the firm can just "blame the economy."?

Because law firms care very deeply about the perception that they're wildly profitable, even if that's not true. From a big law firm's perspective, it is infinitely better to gin up a reason to fire an associate who is actually performing decently than it is to acknowledge that the firm has money problems and needs to lay people off. This is precisely what Latham & Watkins did during the Great Recession and that reputation has followed them for the past decade.

Are biglaw attorneys being Lathamed again?

I have no idea. I was just responding to the discussion about why a firm would Latham someone rather than blaming the economy.

Given that very highest end firms (Covington, W&C, etc.) have been comparatively quiet about their response to the coronavirus, I have to think there are (or will be) stealth layoffs occurring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though."

Some will do it to protect partners whose practices have slowed down, but passing that associate's work on to the partner.

I suspect that unless our economy does a sharp "V", review time at big law will be ugly, with associates, of counsel and some non-equity partners getting false and overly-negative reviews in order to set them up for performance-based layoffs.

Hopefully not. Why bother with this charade, when when they're at-will employees, and the firm can just "blame the economy."?

Because law firms care very deeply about the perception that they're wildly profitable, even if that's not true. From a big law firm's perspective, it is infinitely better to gin up a reason to fire an associate who is actually performing decently than it is to acknowledge that the firm has money problems and needs to lay people off. This is precisely what Latham & Watkins did during the Great Recession and that reputation has followed them for the past decade.

Are biglaw attorneys being Lathamed again?

not yet - there have been a number of lower-range AMLAW 100/200 firms to come right out and announce layoffs. But the Lathaming is coming, for sure, with the vault 50 pretty soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm (20-30 range) has a global town hall today. Partners didn't get a draw this quarter and I'm thinking this will be layoffs, but I'm stupidly optimistic they'll start with paycuts.

Update: partner comp reduced by 20% for first half of year, hiring freeze, summer program will get dialed back (but not canceled), no salary reductions for associates or staff. Caveat re: layoffs/pay reductions - this is the absolute last resort; don't want to get there, but we really don't know how long this will last or how bad it will get so no blanket promise to never do so.

At the very least, reviews are going to get a lot tougher and there will be more “performance” terminations. No one wants to be the one to admit to Latham-ing associates, although Latham sure seems to have survived just fine.

What is "Latham-ing" an associate?

It’s when a firm lays off associates due to financial constraints or to boost profits but tells the associates fired that it was due to their poor performance. Done by most big firms.

Ah, okay. I'm not in the law profession myself but have plenty of friends who are, including a partner at Latham, so I was just curious.

Sounds about right from what I do know about big law!

Large law firms have devolved into a horrible cesspool. They need to follow a more corporate model and hire fewer people with a view to have them stay. Charge reasonable rates. Pay associates far less. Allow for more job security. Should devalue billable hours and value good work and team building etc. The accounting firms are like this. Big law can do it.

You aren’t wrong. The high associate salaries lead to high hours requirements and high rates and no tolerance for a dip in performance.

OP here. the salary jumps in successive years is going to absolutely screw firms like mine (vault 60-ish ranked) that try to play the elite firm game but doesn't have the business model to support it. if we start laying people off, it will be in large part to us following the herd and paying first years $190k.

incidentally, there were jumps in biglaw pay in 2005, then 2006 - then the economy shit the bed in late 2007. looks a lot like now. and just before 9/111, i think biglaw jumped to 125k for first years.

are lawyers just inherently god-awful businesspeople?

anyway, i am a partner (or, i should say, "partner" as only 10% of my comp is equity), and there is a very good chance i'll be laid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm (20-30 range) has a global town hall today. Partners didn't get a draw this quarter and I'm thinking this will be layoffs, but I'm stupidly optimistic they'll start with paycuts.

Update: partner comp reduced by 20% for first half of year, hiring freeze, summer program will get dialed back (but not canceled), no salary reductions for associates or staff. Caveat re: layoffs/pay reductions - this is the absolute last resort; don't want to get there, but we really don't know how long this will last or how bad it will get so no blanket promise to never do so.

At the very least, reviews are going to get a lot tougher and there will be more “performance” terminations. No one wants to be the one to admit to Latham-ing associates, although Latham sure seems to have survived just fine.

What is "Latham-ing" an associate?

It’s when a firm lays off associates due to financial constraints or to boost profits but tells the associates fired that it was due to their poor performance. Done by most big firms.

Ah, okay. I'm not in the law profession myself but have plenty of friends who are, including a partner at Latham, so I was just curious.

Sounds about right from what I do know about big law!

Large law firms have devolved into a horrible cesspool. They need to follow a more corporate model and hire fewer people with a view to have them stay. Charge reasonable rates. Pay associates far less. Allow for more job security. Should devalue billable hours and value good work and team building etc. The accounting firms are like this. Big law can do it.

You aren’t wrong. The high associate salaries lead to high hours requirements and high rates and no tolerance for a dip in performance.

OP here. the salary jumps in successive years is going to absolutely screw firms like mine (vault 60-ish ranked) that try to play the elite firm game but doesn't have the business model to support it. if we start laying people off, it will be in large part to us following the herd and paying first years $190k.

incidentally, there were jumps in biglaw pay in 2005, then 2006 - then the economy shit the bed in late 2007. looks a lot like now. and just before 9/111, i think biglaw jumped to 125k for first years.

are lawyers just inherently god-awful businesspeople?

anyway, i am a partner (or, i should say, "partner" as only 10% of my comp is equity), and there is a very good chance i'll be laid off.

You are hilarious. Unfortunately, I think your pessimism is well founded unless we get back to business soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm (20-30 range) has a global town hall today. Partners didn't get a draw this quarter and I'm thinking this will be layoffs, but I'm stupidly optimistic they'll start with paycuts.

Update: partner comp reduced by 20% for first half of year, hiring freeze, summer program will get dialed back (but not canceled), no salary reductions for associates or staff. Caveat re: layoffs/pay reductions - this is the absolute last resort; don't want to get there, but we really don't know how long this will last or how bad it will get so no blanket promise to never do so.

At the very least, reviews are going to get a lot tougher and there will be more “performance” terminations. No one wants to be the one to admit to Latham-ing associates, although Latham sure seems to have survived just fine.

What is "Latham-ing" an associate?

It’s when a firm lays off associates due to financial constraints or to boost profits but tells the associates fired that it was due to their poor performance. Done by most big firms.

Ah, okay. I'm not in the law profession myself but have plenty of friends who are, including a partner at Latham, so I was just curious.

Sounds about right from what I do know about big law!

Large law firms have devolved into a horrible cesspool. They need to follow a more corporate model and hire fewer people with a view to have them stay. Charge reasonable rates. Pay associates far less. Allow for more job security. Should devalue billable hours and value good work and team building etc. The accounting firms are like this. Big law can do it.

You aren’t wrong. The high associate salaries lead to high hours requirements and high rates and no tolerance for a dip in performance.

OP here. the salary jumps in successive years is going to absolutely screw firms like mine (vault 60-ish ranked) that try to play the elite firm game but doesn't have the business model to support it. if we start laying people off, it will be in large part to us following the herd and paying first years $190k.

incidentally, there were jumps in biglaw pay in 2005, then 2006 - then the economy shit the bed in late 2007. looks a lot like now. and just before 9/111, i think biglaw jumped to 125k for first years.

are lawyers just inherently god-awful businesspeople?

anyway, i am a partner (or, i should say, "partner" as only 10% of my comp is equity), and there is a very good chance i'll be laid off.

Are you going to be laid off or is your performance suddenly going to be "lacking"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though."

Some will do it to protect partners whose practices have slowed down, but passing that associate's work on to the partner.

I suspect that unless our economy does a sharp "V", review time at big law will be ugly, with associates, of counsel and some non-equity partners getting false and overly-negative reviews in order to set them up for performance-based layoffs.

Hopefully not. Why bother with this charade, when when they're at-will employees, and the firm can just "blame the economy."?

This. And it’s kinder to blame the economy than make it about performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm (20-30 range) has a global town hall today. Partners didn't get a draw this quarter and I'm thinking this will be layoffs, but I'm stupidly optimistic they'll start with paycuts.

Update: partner comp reduced by 20% for first half of year, hiring freeze, summer program will get dialed back (but not canceled), no salary reductions for associates or staff. Caveat re: layoffs/pay reductions - this is the absolute last resort; don't want to get there, but we really don't know how long this will last or how bad it will get so no blanket promise to never do so.

At the very least, reviews are going to get a lot tougher and there will be more “performance” terminations. No one wants to be the one to admit to Latham-ing associates, although Latham sure seems to have survived just fine.

What is "Latham-ing" an associate?

It’s when a firm lays off associates due to financial constraints or to boost profits but tells the associates fired that it was due to their poor performance. Done by most big firms.

Ah, okay. I'm not in the law profession myself but have plenty of friends who are, including a partner at Latham, so I was just curious.

Sounds about right from what I do know about big law!

Large law firms have devolved into a horrible cesspool. They need to follow a more corporate model and hire fewer people with a view to have them stay. Charge reasonable rates. Pay associates far less. Allow for more job security. Should devalue billable hours and value good work and team building etc. The accounting firms are like this. Big law can do it.

Don’t worry, I think a lot of these “traditional” industries like big law and banking will change once the Boomers die out. Millennial men actually want to spend time with their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though."

Some will do it to protect partners whose practices have slowed down, but passing that associate's work on to the partner.

I suspect that unless our economy does a sharp "V", review time at big law will be ugly, with associates, of counsel and some non-equity partners getting false and overly-negative reviews in order to set them up for performance-based layoffs.

Hopefully not. Why bother with this charade, when when they're at-will employees, and the firm can just "blame the economy."?

Because law firms care very deeply about the perception that they're wildly profitable, even if that's not true. From a big law firm's perspective, it is infinitely better to gin up a reason to fire an associate who is actually performing decently than it is to acknowledge that the firm has money problems and needs to lay people off. This is precisely what Latham & Watkins did during the Great Recession and that reputation has followed them for the past decade.

This is an idiotic practice! In normal times when the industry is doing fine and they had some financial mismanagement they might be able to get away with that. But if ALL law firms all laying off and the reason why is obvious the performance excuse is not going to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a first year in 2001, there was a recession right after 9/11 and lots of law firm layoffs. There was just no work to give the new associates. They cut the junior associates and the expensive “of counsel” first. If you start billing less than 160/month regularly you will know you are in their radar to get axed.

Yep, and this was the true birth of the practice of firing associates for "cause" when the cause was really "no work to give them." Then the firms felt comfortable Latham-ing en masse in 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My firm (20-30 range) has a global town hall today. Partners didn't get a draw this quarter and I'm thinking this will be layoffs, but I'm stupidly optimistic they'll start with paycuts.

Update: partner comp reduced by 20% for first half of year, hiring freeze, summer program will get dialed back (but not canceled), no salary reductions for associates or staff. Caveat re: layoffs/pay reductions - this is the absolute last resort; don't want to get there, but we really don't know how long this will last or how bad it will get so no blanket promise to never do so.

At the very least, reviews are going to get a lot tougher and there will be more “performance” terminations. No one wants to be the one to admit to Latham-ing associates, although Latham sure seems to have survived just fine.

What is "Latham-ing" an associate?

It’s when a firm lays off associates due to financial constraints or to boost profits but tells the associates fired that it was due to their poor performance. Done by most big firms.

Ah, okay. I'm not in the law profession myself but have plenty of friends who are, including a partner at Latham, so I was just curious.

Sounds about right from what I do know about big law!

Large law firms have devolved into a horrible cesspool. They need to follow a more corporate model and hire fewer people with a view to have them stay. Charge reasonable rates. Pay associates far less. Allow for more job security. Should devalue billable hours and value good work and team building etc. The accounting firms are like this. Big law can do it.

Don’t worry, I think a lot of these “traditional” industries like big law and banking will change once the Boomers die out. Millennial men actually want to spend time with their families.

I hope so, but I wonder if they see what their Gen-X and Boomer counterparts have done and don't know how to work differently.