Big Law - HR meeting out of the blue

[Anonymous]

If group has low work, likely to be 'that conversation."

Good luck, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's McDonnell-Douglas. When you're trying to act like you know what you're talking about, you should at least get the name of the Supreme Court case correct.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

OP will imply it, and hope the listener will infer it.

[Anonymous]

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.).

I think this is less true these days than it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't see the legal letters back and forth, but I know the firm considered that it was a pretty big goof up. Apparently no one sanity checked or considered leave before finalizing the layoff list.

Having spent years of trying to increase the number of women with diversity initiatives, they decimated the number of women associates in a single action, including a number of women who'd been favorites and targeted to make partner. It looked and smelled really bad.

Above the Law was also writing articles about mothers and minorities being targeted for layoffs and I'm sure no firm wanted to be featured.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be consistent responses here from the biglaw attorneys who have been in the system for at least a couple slowdown cycles, so here's a summary of the posts:

- Law firms don't do PIP or put you on a plan on notice. When you get the call, it is the call.
- The call may be with HR and/or with a partner.
- Law firms will not, during that meeting, hand you a box and walk you outside.
- Low quality work or low hours are both a basis for being let go. Both are considered performance issues. They often overlap (that is, the poor quality unliked associate gets little work from partners, because they don't like working with them - so hours are low). But not always. Sometimes, the market is just slow and there is not enough work to go around to all associates, in which case, perfectly good associates are laid off. This happens all the time.
- The firm will absolutely let you go during this meeting, even without having mentioned a previous problem. That is the law firm contract - live by the billable hour.
- The firm won't wait a year for low hours; they are tracking the economy and each industry and making judgment calls. If things are slow now and they are expected to continue for at least [X period of time], they will cull now. These calls can be made within 3 months of market shifts.
- However, women coming back from leave are typically given an informal pass on being fired for low hours, for some reasonable window after they return. Because it is a near universal experience to have a long ramp up period after leave, so if firms did not offer this reprieve, they would be firing most new mothers. Which would in fact be a PR disaster. However, most firms do penalize these women through no bonus. Some firms are fixing this.
- Paternity leave is evolving, and taken inconsistently, so there is not enough data to know if men are being penalized the same as women. OP is a woman, so not relevant.
- law firms don't like firing people. They invest a lot of time in associate hiring and matching of culture and personalities; they are disappointed to let you go. They also don't want to be sued. As a consequence, their exit packages are very generous - long severance, negotiable time to stay on the webpage, continuing health insurance, don't fight unemployment, etc.
- Whether you want to start downloading files etc is a decision left to you. There are explicit firm policies against that, and they are definitely used to fire attorneys. But if they've already let you go, I doubt they will give you a hard time. Every time partners jump to new firms, they take all their work product - and I don't think that is usually prosecuted.
- Hiring law firms get that this happens and understand that perfectly good associates may be let go - and so being gently pushed out of a law firm is not the same pox as being fired in other industries. Most associates who are pushed out are able to find similar work elsewhere (2008/9 being an exception, because no one was hiring).

Good luck OP; would be very weird to be getting let go three months after leave and after a positive job review, but it's hard to imagine what else is being discussed. If it is bad news, you will genuinely be fine. There is a lot of hiring going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be consistent responses here from the biglaw attorneys who have been in the system for at least a couple slowdown cycles, so here's a summary of the posts:

- Law firms don't do PIP or put you on a plan on notice. When you get the call, it is the call.
- The call may be with HR and/or with a partner.
- Law firms will not, during that meeting, hand you a box and walk you outside.
- Low quality work or low hours are both a basis for being let go. Both are considered performance issues. They often overlap (that is, the poor quality unliked associate gets little work from partners, because they don't like working with them - so hours are low). But not always. Sometimes, the market is just slow and there is not enough work to go around to all associates, in which case, perfectly good associates are laid off. This happens all the time.
- The firm will absolutely let you go during this meeting, even without having mentioned a previous problem. That is the law firm contract - live by the billable hour.
- The firm won't wait a year for low hours; they are tracking the economy and each industry and making judgment calls. If things are slow now and they are expected to continue for at least [X period of time], they will cull now. These calls can be made within 3 months of market shifts.
- However, women coming back from leave are typically given an informal pass on being fired for low hours, for some reasonable window after they return. Because it is a near universal experience to have a long ramp up period after leave, so if firms did not offer this reprieve, they would be firing most new mothers. Which would in fact be a PR disaster. However, most firms do penalize these women through no bonus. Some firms are fixing this.
- Paternity leave is evolving, and taken inconsistently, so there is not enough data to know if men are being penalized the same as women. OP is a woman, so not relevant.
- law firms don't like firing people. They invest a lot of time in associate hiring and matching of culture and personalities; they are disappointed to let you go. They also don't want to be sued. As a consequence, their exit packages are very generous - long severance, negotiable time to stay on the webpage, continuing health insurance, don't fight unemployment, etc.
- Whether you want to start downloading files etc is a decision left to you. There are explicit firm policies against that, and they are definitely used to fire attorneys. But if they've already let you go, I doubt they will give you a hard time. Every time partners jump to new firms, they take all their work product - and I don't think that is usually prosecuted.
- Hiring law firms get that this happens and understand that perfectly good associates may be let go - and so being gently pushed out of a law firm is not the same pox as being fired in other industries. Most associates who are pushed out are able to find similar work elsewhere (2008/9 being an exception, because no one was hiring).

Good luck OP; would be very weird to be getting let go three months after leave and after a positive job review, but it's hard to imagine what else is being discussed. If it is bad news, you will genuinely be fine. There is a lot of hiring going on.

This is op. Thanks for this summary. Will update the group later this afternoon. The only update I have for you all now is that the meeting was supposed to be in person but the partner is out sick so it will be me and the HR person in the office and the partner joining through zoom. That kind of takes some pressure off, but at the same time, it’s harder to get a read on a person and their body language through a webcam.

[Anonymous]

OP, I worked at one of the big firms that collapsed in 2008. It was honestly the best thing that could have happened to my career, even though it was really scary at the time. No matter what, you will be OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I worked at one of the big firms that collapsed in 2008. It was honestly the best thing that could have happened to my career, even though it was really scary at the time. No matter what, you will be OK.

Op here. Thanks for sharing. Love this for you, and hopefully I’ll look back and feel the same way in the event of a layoff. The group is extremely slow, we lost our bread and butter client back in April while I was out on leave and now they can’t justify keeping 6 partners 2 juniors and 1 senior associate in this group for no big client. We’ll see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Good luck OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I worked at one of the big firms that collapsed in 2008. It was honestly the best thing that could have happened to my career, even though it was really scary at the time. No matter what, you will be OK.

Op here. Thanks for sharing. Love this for you, and hopefully I’ll look back and feel the same way in the event of a layoff. The group is extremely slow, we lost our bread and butter client back in April while I was out on leave and now they can’t justify keeping 6 partners 2 juniors and 1 senior associate in this group for no big client. We’ll see what happens.

This likely means that there's not a full market downturn for your industry; it might just be your firm. If worst case, you'll be let go today, this is an easy one to explain in the 6 months you'll have to find another job. Including at another firm, if you want to go that way. You'll be fine. Lots of firms still hiring.

[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.

This is op. I actually know of two other associates who did not meet hours and neither of them took parental leave and neither of them had a meeting called for by HR to discuss bogus performance issues. #retaliation.

[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.

This is op. I actually know of two other associates who did not meet hours and neither of them took parental leave and neither of them had a meeting called for by HR to discuss bogus performance issues. #retaliation.

It could be hours + something else, like people not wanting to work with you because of your personality. Also, their time might be coming up too. And of course your firm might just be staffed with sexist a-holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I worked at one of the big firms that collapsed in 2008. It was honestly the best thing that could have happened to my career, even though it was really scary at the time. No matter what, you will be OK.

Op here. Thanks for sharing. Love this for you, and hopefully I’ll look back and feel the same way in the event of a layoff. The group is extremely slow, we lost our bread and butter client back in April while I was out on leave and now they can’t justify keeping 6 partners 2 juniors and 1 senior associate in this group for no big client. We’ll see what happens.

This likely means that there's not a full market downturn for your industry; it might just be your firm. If worst case, you'll be let go today, this is an easy one to explain in the 6 months you'll have to find another job. Including at another firm, if you want to go that way. You'll be fine. Lots of firms still hiring.

This is op. Thanks. I disagree about the market. There has been a significant market down turn in our practice area many associate and partners in our group (according to the firm itself) did not meet hours last year.