Big Law - HR meeting out of the blue

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this is just a warning and they have the HR rep there just to be absolutely sure that everything the partner says is above board? Since they have to be very careful because of your recent leave? This does seem like a very unusual situation and perhaps they just want to tread carefully.

What is your practice area? Is it related to tech somehow? Is your firm looking at using AI in a way that will replace junior associates? (My husband's firm is). I haven't heard of any layoffs in big law but maybe they are coming because of AI disruption.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like you haven't generated a lot of billings over the past 12 months (obviously) and they may want to send a message that things need to pick up soon.

[Anonymous]

All of the posters suggesting that what’s happening here smells like a viable lawsuit need to pipe down. It couldn’t be more obvious that OP sees the writing on the wall and isn’t exactly surprised. She knew this was coming and she knows the reasons.

[Anonymous]

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.

Have fun going down that rabbit hole, OP!

[Anonymous]

Make sure you back up all your info now.

I'd sue the crap out of them if they fire. Obvious parental leave discrimination.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Yes, there have been lawsuits filed against BigLaw, and their MSJs have been denied due to judges not buying their "legitimate business reasons" proffered in the McDonald-Douglas burden shifting analysis. If they can't get SJ and the plaintiff doesn't settle with them, do you think juries would have a soft spot for BigLaw?

[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.

Yes, there have been lawsuits filed against BigLaw, and their MSJs have been denied due to judges not buying their "legitimate business reasons" proffered in the McDonald-Douglas burden shifting analysis. If they can't get SJ and the plaintiff doesn't settle with them, do you think juries would have a soft spot for BigLaw?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

In 2008 I'm aware of a BigLaw firm that chose who to layoff based on hours and ended up terminating every single woman who had taken maternity leave in the past 12 months, as well as everyone who had taken FMLA. (Paternity leave was far more limited back then.) It ended in a group settlement with a payout, but those folks didn't get their jobs back in a terrible job market.

I'd hope law firms today are more savvy, but wouldn't count on it. Memories are short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2008 I'm aware of a BigLaw firm that chose who to layoff based on hours and ended up terminating every single woman who had taken maternity leave in the past 12 months, as well as everyone who had taken FMLA. (Paternity leave was far more limited back then.) It ended in a group settlement with a payout, but those folks didn't get their jobs back in a terrible job market.

I'd hope law firms today are more savvy, but wouldn't count on it. Memories are short.

But as long as they ALSO fired people who hadn't taken maternity leave and FMLA, they are technically ok under employment law. Which is horrible. Employment law is not favorable to the employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it were me I'd be come to the meeting prepared to discuss severance and related issues (i.e. job placement assistance, resume review, references, etc.). You should be able to get 3 months severance and 6 months listed on the firm website so no pay after 3 months but still get health insurance.

This is what my friend got but he still got unemployment when severance was up. They didn’t fight him on it.

[Anonymous]

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.).