Big Law - HR meeting out of the blue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

I would be really surprised if there is no severance because the 3 months paid six months on website is market rate for large firms. Maybe that drops off in the amlaw 100-200 range and maybe in the bottom of that amlaw 100 range. Even my cheap firm with pay compression gave that severance.

No, the 60 days (allegedly called PIP but no PIP presentation, so no PIP) is what the firm is giving her to find another job and get out. that is it. Now if she's still there in 60 days with no new job in hand, then they might discuss something else like severance. Remember these firm lawyers are smart. Why would they give more when they don't have to? they are telling her to find a new job now.

No --the 60 days is a gift. Then the 3 months. If it is really Biglaw and not some big law firm that is not really BigLaw. OP -- at Davis Polk, Wilmer, Covington, Paul Weiss type firm or Greenberg?

+1.

[Anonymous]

Agree that any reputable V20 firm should pay three months severance, but lower ranked firms (even in the V50 or V100) often will not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

I'm sorry OP. I agree with you, the paycheck from this 60 day period is likely the "severance." It's not a real PIP, if it does not include metrics to improve your performance and keep your job. If the metrics are you need to work more hours, then they need to be giving you the work. Maybe continue to play dumb and ask more questions about how to "pass" the PIP. If you're comfortable, you can see an attorney, not to sue them, but to help negotiate a better deal.

You you want to go the play dumb and act like it's a real PIP, schedule weekly meeting with the partner to discuss progress and what you are doing to meet it. Part of an actual PIP is management working with the employee to hit the goals- in this case giving them the work. My guess is the PIP guise would drop very fast

Isn’t this just playing games? It’s clear what their intentions are.

DP - isn't the law firm just playing games? And playing them to CYA against an employment action against them?

They are not playing games. They are running a business.

It would be much smarter to use the partner to introduce you to connections or serve as a reference rather than play dumb and embarrass oneself.

I'm not OP, but let me get this right: the firm gets carte blanche to lie about the quality of OP's work and frame her dismissal as performance-based instead of the truth, which is that their business model is unable to sustain her as an employee. OP should do whatever is in her best interest, but if that includes calling the firm's bluff, then she should call it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

I'm sorry OP. I agree with you, the paycheck from this 60 day period is likely the "severance." It's not a real PIP, if it does not include metrics to improve your performance and keep your job. If the metrics are you need to work more hours, then they need to be giving you the work. Maybe continue to play dumb and ask more questions about how to "pass" the PIP. If you're comfortable, you can see an attorney, not to sue them, but to help negotiate a better deal.

You you want to go the play dumb and act like it's a real PIP, schedule weekly meeting with the partner to discuss progress and what you are doing to meet it. Part of an actual PIP is management working with the employee to hit the goals- in this case giving them the work. My guess is the PIP guise would drop very fast

Isn’t this just playing games? It’s clear what their intentions are.

DP - isn't the law firm just playing games? And playing them to CYA against an employment action against them?

They are not playing games. They are running a business.

It would be much smarter to use the partner to introduce you to connections or serve as a reference rather than play dumb and embarrass oneself.

I'm not OP, but let me get this right: the firm gets carte blanche to lie about the quality of OP's work and frame her dismissal as performance-based instead of the truth, which is that their business model is unable to sustain her as an employee. OP should do whatever is in her best interest, but if that includes calling the firm's bluff, then she should call it.

And OP will end up blackballed in the DC legal community. BIGLAW has always operated in this way. Partners will NOT take responsibility for not bringing in enough business to sustain their associates. As long as they can pay for themselves and their other associates, the other partners won't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not OP, but let me get this right: the firm gets carte blanche to lie about the quality of OP's work and frame her dismissal as performance-based instead of the truth, which is that their business model is unable to sustain her as an employee. OP should do whatever is in her best interest, but if that includes calling the firm's bluff, then she should call it.

Calling the firm's bluff is very much NOT in OP's best interest.

Yes, the whole "we're going to blindside you with a baseless bad review" part sucks, but everything else is much better than elsewhere in the private sector.

OP has 60 days to look for a new job with the support of her current employer while still pulling in a salary. And if she doesn't have anything set in 60 days, they may give her a bit more time before involuntary termination (and possibly severance). With the exception of layoffs covered under the WARN act, in the private sector you get walked out the door the same day.

The firm will try to reduce the pain of this if OP plays along. If OP decides to push back and make a big stink, things will not go so smoothly or well for the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Fmr senior biglaw associate reading this thread with interest. I left 2.5 years ago for an in-house role (I was a 7th year at the time). I had years of good reviews but felt i was not in the superstar camp and didn't want to hit a wall at year 8 or 9 and have 'the talk.' But tracking my former colleagues, it seems like firms are more open than ever to keeping associates around indefinitely. Many more 11,12,13 year associates than ever before. Also more of counsels being made than was previously the case (again, this is just at my former V10). I sometimes wish i just road it out if i knew I had that many more years of the gravy train. Have others in biglaw noticed this shift away from strict up or out in the last 5 years or so?

To OP, sorry this happened. Agree with others you should ask for at least 3 months severance and 6 months website. What vault range is your firm?

What some see as a departure from “strict up or out,” others see as brutal lengthening of the partnership track. Lol. Admittedly the money is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not OP, but let me get this right: the firm gets carte blanche to lie about the quality of OP's work and frame her dismissal as performance-based instead of the truth, which is that their business model is unable to sustain her as an employee. OP should do whatever is in her best interest, but if that includes calling the firm's bluff, then she should call it.

Calling the firm's bluff is very much NOT in OP's best interest.

Yes, the whole "we're going to blindside you with a baseless bad review" part sucks, but everything else is much better than elsewhere in the private sector.

OP has 60 days to look for a new job with the support of her current employer while still pulling in a salary. And if she doesn't have anything set in 60 days, they may give her a bit more time before involuntary termination (and possibly severance). With the exception of layoffs covered under the WARN act, in the private sector you get walked out the door the same day.

The firm will try to reduce the pain of this if OP plays along. If OP decides to push back and make a big stink, things will not go so smoothly or well for the OP.

+1. I just don’t get why firms feel the need to create pretend performance issues. Much better to be honest. Even saying, look, you’re great, but so-and-so the third year is equally great and costs us 200k less per year (or whatever the truth is) is much fairer to people and IMO makes it much easier for people to deal with adverse decisions. And PSA to all mid- to senior level associates: it can end at any time with very little notice, so plan your financial affairs accordingly. This is true for partners too, btw, there is no security at that level anymore either.

[Anonymous]

Ego.

A PP nailed it - the partners won’t take responsibility for their role in not bringing in the revenue, over hiring, etc. It’s too easy to blame the associates.

When this happened to friend of mine, HR wasn’t even in the room. Just the rainmaker and one of his minion service partners. A big client was pulling back work. He suspected the rainmaker of quiet firing tons of folks without the firm being fully in the know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ego.

A PP nailed it - the partners won’t take responsibility for their role in not bringing in the revenue, over hiring, etc. It’s too easy to blame the associates.

When this happened to friend of mine, HR wasn’t even in the room. Just the rainmaker and one of his minion service partners. A big client was pulling back work. He suspected the rainmaker of quiet firing tons of folks without the firm being fully in the know.

Not only was the firm fully in the know, the employment law department at the firm signed off on it. This is how BIGLAW operates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

I'm sorry OP. I agree with you, the paycheck from this 60 day period is likely the "severance." It's not a real PIP, if it does not include metrics to improve your performance and keep your job. If the metrics are you need to work more hours, then they need to be giving you the work. Maybe continue to play dumb and ask more questions about how to "pass" the PIP. If you're comfortable, you can see an attorney, not to sue them, but to help negotiate a better deal.

You you want to go the play dumb and act like it's a real PIP, schedule weekly meeting with the partner to discuss progress and what you are doing to meet it. Part of an actual PIP is management working with the employee to hit the goals- in this case giving them the work. My guess is the PIP guise would drop very fast

Isn’t this just playing games? It’s clear what their intentions are.

DP - isn't the law firm just playing games? And playing them to CYA against an employment action against them?

They are not playing games. They are running a business.

It would be much smarter to use the partner to introduce you to connections or serve as a reference rather than play dumb and embarrass oneself.

I'm not OP, but let me get this right: the firm gets carte blanche to lie about the quality of OP's work and frame her dismissal as performance-based instead of the truth, which is that their business model is unable to sustain her as an employee. OP should do whatever is in her best interest, but if that includes calling the firm's bluff, then she should call it.

You don't have big law experience and you're probably not a lawyer. You and others like you need to butt out. This isn't Microsoft. This is big law, which is insular and "calling their bluff" doesn't turn out well for people in OPs position.

Big law is up or out. Most people end up out.

[Anonymous]

I thought firms usually told associates they weren't partner material and nudged them out. Not fake PIPs.

[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.

What about the above is incorrect? Are you a practicing employment law attorney?

NP.

It's not incorrect, it's just an odd post. Who are you talking to? The people who know how this works don't need your little explainer. And the people who don't are not going to understand a lick of what you said.

I think the dig was because this is kind of typical of junior attorneys who spew out something that is technically correct, but not at all useful.

[Anonymous]

If it gives OP any comfort, something similar happened to me in 2002. (I was a 6th year associate at one of the top law firms in DC.)

In hindsight, it was the best thing to happen to me. (I tried not to take it personally. Our practice group was kind of slow at the time. And so many of my fellow associates were truly top-performers. Many of them had clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court, or at a minimum for one of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. I literally just was not as smart as they were.)

Although I was surprised to get this news, I didn't fight it during the meeting when the two partners broke the news to me. I acknowledged what they said, and even told them I believe in meritocracy.

After taking 1 year off to be home with my infant son (a precious year that I am so glad that I took), I found a part-time in-house legal position with a great Fortune 100 company. I later switched to a full-time position at a different Fortune 100 company.

Working in-house is far preferable to working at a law firm, IMHO. The money was nice in BigLaw, but the design of law firms is kind of strange (where you have all of these groups doing totally different things, and even in tension with each other due to some having to turn down new client projects due to conflicts of interest.) I like how, when you're in-house, we're all working toward the same goal and we're all on the same team.

I'm 54 now and have a great work-life balance, and my kids are now in high school and college.

Good luck to you! Perhaps take a year with your little one at home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it gives OP any comfort, something similar happened to me in 2002. (I was a 6th year associate at one of the top law firms in DC.)

In hindsight, it was the best thing to happen to me. (I tried not to take it personally. Our practice group was kind of slow at the time. And so many of my fellow associates were truly top-performers. Many of them had clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court, or at a minimum for one of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. I literally just was not as smart as they were.)

Although I was surprised to get this news, I didn't fight it during the meeting when the two partners broke the news to me. I acknowledged what they said, and even told them I believe in meritocracy.

After taking 1 year off to be home with my infant son (a precious year that I am so glad that I took), I found a part-time in-house legal position with a great Fortune 100 company. I later switched to a full-time position at a different Fortune 100 company.

Working in-house is far preferable to working at a law firm, IMHO. The money was nice in BigLaw, but the design of law firms is kind of strange (where you have all of these groups doing totally different things, and even in tension with each other due to some having to turn down new client projects due to conflicts of interest.) I like how, when you're in-house, we're all working toward the same goal and we're all on the same team.

I'm 54 now and have a great work-life balance, and my kids are now in high school and college.

Good luck to you! Perhaps take a year with your little one at home?

And this is the key. I've seen far too many lawyers burn out, turn to drugs and/or alcohol, get divorced, never see their kids, etc... It doesn't have to be this way, but you need to accept the fact that you're not going to make BIGLAW money anywhere else, except perhaps for in-house tech or the pre-IPO world, but there's just as much job (in)security in those environments as well. If you play your cards right, save your money, etc... you can still retire at 55-60 with a few million in the bank (and maybe even government health benefits). What more do you want?

[Anonymous]

So the consensus is:

1. It was really sh***y for the firm to blame letting OP go on performance issues.

2. Even if OP is an incredible attorney, it's likely she would have been pushed out anyway because of the lack of work available in the practice area and simple math (very few associates make partner). So retaliation for leave is highly unlikely.

3. OP is guaranteed to have a better quality of life outside of Biglaw and this may be one of the best things that ever happened to her, even though right now the situation sucks.