Big Law - HR meeting out of the blue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one good thing about BigLaw is that they hate to fire anyone and are really risk averse on litigation so will typically give a pretty long runway for you to look for something and/or decent severance for a release.

But I’d be pretty surprised if this is “that conversation” if there were no previous indications that things weren’t going well. Unless there was a major screwup (client insulted, filing deadline missed, etc.).

If you are recently back from maternity leave and want to negotiate more severence don't be afraid to raise the timing of this discussion as suspect. I might not say the word retaliation but you can infer it.

Yes, it's at least the leverage you need to negotiate severance, not that they'll ever admit that the leave had anything to do with the alleged performance issues.

I’m the one who said to negotiate, I work in HR and have also worked in HR at BigLaw (never again!). When I was there the money for severance was free flowing. That is some BS about not focusing on the great reviews you received! I can’t believe they said that out loud. I’m guessing they didn’t talk to an employment lawyer before they met with you. Did you know that if you go to the DC Human Rights Commission and file a complaint, they go straight to mediation? Well, your firm knows it.

I think you should ask for a longer runway to find a new role and severance when you leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they are actually saying is that you are a fine associate, hence the good reviews on the work you were doing, but not partner material, which is the next step. Now you are too expensive to use on the matters you are qualified to cover. Your good reviews will help you find a new position, but keep in mind they will know you were considered not partner material, so don't try to bluff that.

+1. It might not feel like it, OP, but this is a show of respect to you. They have enough respect to do this as gently as possible. They don't have to, but they did and that speaks well of all involved, including you.

OP is 3 months removed from paternity leave and has good reviews. 60 days is better than having to defend a lawsuit

That is far from a show of respect. It smells of retaliation for her leave- it may not be retaliation but it’s not a great look for them, especially considering her great reviews. They have deep pockets and they should give her at least six months and allow her to resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you on a PIP alright - Paid Interview Prep. You're going to kill it!

I love this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd update your resume and put out some feelers to recruiters, OP.

How were your billables?

Low billables. But the market has been slow for our group in general.

I wouldn’t keep riding on the good performance review from last year.

How does your firm normally handle performance issues? Is it multiple warnings/a PIP? Or immediate separation?

Law firms aren't like this. If there isn't enough work to support the associates on staff, they will fire some until there is a better matching of supply/demand. You can be totally competent, even well liked associate. But if there's not enough work, and the firm predicts the downturn will last, then you still have a high chance of layoff. Firms took too long in 2008 to react to the sudden downturn, and figured out they needed to be quicker - so now assume they will make firing decisions within 3 months of a slowdown. They'll do this even if you're a good lawyer - but they'll pick the least busy associate to lay off, because that is just a general indication of how much partners need/like the associate.

If you're a bad associate, you also don't get a warning - they will just let you go with severance.

OP - i would be surprised that they wouldn't give you more of a 3 month runway to come back after leave and get your feet back on the ground. It's very normal to take a while for work to pick back up. And it's not good optics to fire new moms. But how were your hours before leave? Had you been cruising a bit and already seen as one of the lesser focused associates?

BUt with all that said, in my 17 years in biglaw, I have never heard of an associate or non-equity partner having a meeting asked for by HR where it wasn't to be let go.

My former firm laid off a hugely disproportionate amount of women on maternal leave during the 2008 downturn. They even admitted as such to the associates but said since it wasn’t for the reason of being on leave, it was ok. Awful firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depending on practice area, could be a good time to transition to the feds?

Good luck, OP. It's not personal, if there was work you'd still be there, You were just too expensive in a downturn.

Government hiring is going to take much longer than 60 days. If OP wants to be back on the payroll asap, now is not the time to go federal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

She did confirm she’s a woman. Also, she has a 60 day PIP. Assuming she fails to meet the PIP (or however you say that), she will get more time after the 60 days, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depending on practice area, could be a good time to transition to the feds?

Good luck, OP. It's not personal, if there was work you'd still be there, You were just too expensive in a downturn.

Government hiring is going to take much longer than 60 days. If OP wants to be back on the payroll asap, now is not the time to go federal.

It will be much faster to get another firm job than to get a government job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

She did confirm she’s a woman. Also, she has a 60 day PIP. Assuming she fails to meet the PIP (or however you say that), she will get more time after the 60 days, correct?

No op said at the end of 60 days she is without a job. There is no room for trying to improve and then to learn the layoff runway. The firm apparently called it a PIP but it has nothing to do with PIPs as they are known in the corporate world. It’s just a notice of being laid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one good thing about BigLaw is that they hate to fire anyone and are really risk averse on litigation so will typically give a pretty long runway for you to look for something and/or decent severance for a release.

But I’d be pretty surprised if this is “that conversation” if there were no previous indications that things weren’t going well. Unless there was a major screwup (client insulted, filing deadline missed, etc.).

If you are recently back from maternity leave and want to negotiate more severence don't be afraid to raise the timing of this discussion as suspect. I might not say the word retaliation but you can infer it.

Yes, it's at least the leverage you need to negotiate severance, not that they'll ever admit that the leave had anything to do with the alleged performance issues.

I’m the one who said to negotiate, I work in HR and have also worked in HR at BigLaw (never again!). When I was there the money for severance was free flowing. That is some BS about not focusing on the great reviews you received! I can’t believe they said that out loud. I’m guessing they didn’t talk to an employment lawyer before they met with you. Did you know that if you go to the DC Human Rights Commission and file a complaint, they go straight to mediation? Well, your firm knows it.

I think you should ask for a longer runway to find a new role and severance when you leave.

bad bad bad advice. You do not want to do anything like this in the D.C legal community. She needs to get a new job first. And don't burn bridges. The D.C. legal community is small. And - to OP - you should ask Jeff to take this thread down. Your employer may find it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one good thing about BigLaw is that they hate to fire anyone and are really risk averse on litigation so will typically give a pretty long runway for you to look for something and/or decent severance for a release.

But I’d be pretty surprised if this is “that conversation” if there were no previous indications that things weren’t going well. Unless there was a major screwup (client insulted, filing deadline missed, etc.).

If you are recently back from maternity leave and want to negotiate more severence don't be afraid to raise the timing of this discussion as suspect. I might not say the word retaliation but you can infer it.

Yes, it's at least the leverage you need to negotiate severance, not that they'll ever admit that the leave had anything to do with the alleged performance issues.

I’m the one who said to negotiate, I work in HR and have also worked in HR at BigLaw (never again!). When I was there the money for severance was free flowing. That is some BS about not focusing on the great reviews you received! I can’t believe they said that out loud. I’m guessing they didn’t talk to an employment lawyer before they met with you. Did you know that if you go to the DC Human Rights Commission and file a complaint, they go straight to mediation? Well, your firm knows it.

I think you should ask for a longer runway to find a new role and severance when you leave.

+1. You have great reviews and have never been told about your performance or billables before AND you just came back from parental leave two months ago? I'd get a lawyer myself and negotiate for more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one good thing about BigLaw is that they hate to fire anyone and are really risk averse on litigation so will typically give a pretty long runway for you to look for something and/or decent severance for a release.

But I’d be pretty surprised if this is “that conversation” if there were no previous indications that things weren’t going well. Unless there was a major screwup (client insulted, filing deadline missed, etc.).

If you are recently back from maternity leave and want to negotiate more severence don't be afraid to raise the timing of this discussion as suspect. I might not say the word retaliation but you can infer it.

Yes, it's at least the leverage you need to negotiate severance, not that they'll ever admit that the leave had anything to do with the alleged performance issues.

I’m the one who said to negotiate, I work in HR and have also worked in HR at BigLaw (never again!). When I was there the money for severance was free flowing. That is some BS about not focusing on the great reviews you received! I can’t believe they said that out loud. I’m guessing they didn’t talk to an employment lawyer before they met with you. Did you know that if you go to the DC Human Rights Commission and file a complaint, they go straight to mediation? Well, your firm knows it.

I think you should ask for a longer runway to find a new role and severance when you leave.

bad bad bad advice. You do not want to do anything like this in the D.C legal community. She needs to get a new job first. And don't burn bridges. The D.C. legal community is small. And - to OP - you should ask Jeff to take this thread down. Your employer may find it.

I’m not saying that she should go to them. I’m saying that they are exposing themselves to risk by terminating a woman who is recently back from maternity leave, with prior good reviews- and they know it. She shoukd get more notice and more severance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd update your resume and put out some feelers to recruiters, OP.

How were your billables?

Low billables. But the market has been slow for our group in general.

I wouldn’t keep riding on the good performance review from last year.

How does your firm normally handle performance issues? Is it multiple warnings/a PIP? Or immediate separation?

Law firms aren't like this. If there isn't enough work to support the associates on staff, they will fire some until there is a better matching of supply/demand. You can be totally competent, even well liked associate. But if there's not enough work, and the firm predicts the downturn will last, then you still have a high chance of layoff. Firms took too long in 2008 to react to the sudden downturn, and figured out they needed to be quicker - so now assume they will make firing decisions within 3 months of a slowdown. They'll do this even if you're a good lawyer - but they'll pick the least busy associate to lay off, because that is just a general indication of how much partners need/like the associate.

If you're a bad associate, you also don't get a warning - they will just let you go with severance.

OP - i would be surprised that they wouldn't give you more of a 3 month runway to come back after leave and get your feet back on the ground. It's very normal to take a while for work to pick back up. And it's not good optics to fire new moms. But how were your hours before leave? Had you been cruising a bit and already seen as one of the lesser focused associates?

BUt with all that said, in my 17 years in biglaw, I have never heard of an associate or non-equity partner having a meeting asked for by HR where it wasn't to be let go.

Like you said, if there’s not enough work, they’ll fire people. If OP is not meeting their target, then they’ll be in the pool to be fired. Coming back from leave doesn’t exempt you from billing targets unless you have an accommodation that could reduce the target.

Assuming you used FMLA leave, maybe you can get evidence together for a FMLA retaliation lawsuit. Did underperforming comparators who did not take protected leave also get called to a meeting with HR? At least may be some leverage in a severance negotiation. For those of you who are thinking a Big Law firm would be savvy enough not to violate federal law, it's happened...

And before anyone comes at me, if OP can establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden then shifts to Big Law to establish a non-retaliatory, legitimate business reason for its adverse employment action. OP then has the burden to show that Big Law's stated non-retaliatory reason is pretextual, which OP could attempt to do by showing that others who did not meet billiables but who did not take protected leave were not subjected to adverse employment actions.

It's always so entertaining when the third-year employment law associates weigh in.

Ha ha exactly. Can anyone actually cite to a successful lawsuit against big law over this issue in the last 100 years? Good God y’all.

Anyone brave enough to take on a law firm over employment law would also know how to get a settlement before going to trial. BTDT

[Anonymous]

This is op. This has been an insane few days. Is anyone with me that this is 100% retaliation? I had great reviews with no issues, I came back from leave in September, I had my review in early November where they discussed my great evaluations and everything is fine and dandy and now all of a sudden in Jan, they have this meeting with bogus excuses and when I refer to my evaluations and good reviews they say “we’re not good at giving reviews” and “let’s not focus on reviews” and “law firms are notoriously bad at giving reviews”. Smells like and feels like retaliation for maternity leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This op with an update for the group. The meeting was for a PIP (performance improvement plan) for 60 days. In other words I should find a new job and I have 60 days to do it. They guised the meeting as “wanting to help me so I don’t hit a wall when I’m up for partner in 2 years” and said “wanting to make partner is a nice ambition” and “you billing rate as a senior associate is high and it almost makes more sense for our group to use a junior and train up” when I said I’m shocked by this given that I’ve had great reviews for the past few years including this last year they said “law firms are notoriously bad about giving reviews” and “your evaluations are fine, everyone gets an A we’re not good at giving evaluations” and “let’s not focus on reviews”

Well that’s interesting since all the posts last night said big law didn’t do PIPs.

Agree with another poster that this is a good runway to focus on finding a new job.

Doesn't sound like a PIP even if they are calling it that because they are going to fire OP at the end of 60 days regardless of her performance. I suspect they told all the partners in OP's practice area so they won't be assigning any work to her. Basically OP has 60 days notice before she is fired but she will probably still get severance at that point so she's getting an extra 2 months of severance than other people get.

Why do you think OP is a woman? I thought OP was a male.

OP, I am sorry. 60 days is too short. Firms used to give at least three months in the old days (20 years ago).

I think OP confirmed somewhere she was female. It's a long thread.

She did confirm she’s a woman. Also, she has a 60 day PIP. Assuming she fails to meet the PIP (or however you say that), she will get more time after the 60 days, correct?

More time sorta. She should get 3 months severance and the ability to say she is employed there for 6 months after the 60 days are up. So she's sorta out of a job but won't appear unemployed for a while.