Get paid to take a year off? I'll take it!

Forum Index » Off-Topic
[Post New]04/14/2009 12:47
Anonymous
Some big law firms are paying mid-year associates to take a year off. Not a bad deal if you don't have a lot of bills to pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/nyregion/13bigcity.html
[Post New]04/14/2009 12:49
Anonymous
Since this is anonymous, I will say that I'd become an alcoholic if I had to stay at home with my kids all day every day. I'll take my PT job just fine, thank you.
[Post New]04/14/2009 13:29
Anonymous
And if you went to law school to be an actual lawyer?? The ethical implications of these handouts creeps me out a little.
[Post New]04/14/2009 14:21
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:And if you went to law school to be an actual lawyer?? The ethical implications of these handouts creeps me out a little.


These people are employees, too. What is unethical about the arrangement?
[Post New]04/14/2009 14:22
Anonymous
What are the ethical implications? Taking a year off does not mean that you stop being a lawyer. The associate could still do pro bono or other volunteer work and even if they choose to sit at home and do nothing, I am not sure there are any ethical implications. This is a very smart move by Skadden. They reduce overall costs, but with minimal damage to the rep at law schools - a huge factor in recruiting.
[Post New]04/14/2009 14:51
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Since this is anonymous, I will say that I'd become an alcoholic if I had to stay at home with my kids all day every day. I'll take my PT job just fine, thank you.


Kudos to you... glad you're not my mom.
[Post New]04/14/2009 14:58
zumbamama
Member Offline
I only wish that would happen to me! I'd do it in a heartbeat.
[Post New]04/14/2009 15:07
Anonymous
Ethical implications because only in the profession of BigLaw associates do we expect (demand?) to be paid to get laid off. Folks are losing their jobs left and right in other industries and yet firms are doing extraordinary things to soften the blow to their lawyers (but, one should note, not their staff). I guess I feel like we're being coddled. I'd rather see associates leave firms to help monks and install solar panels because they want to leave the rat race, not because they were incentivized by the rat to do so.

But, BigLaw associates are a smart bunch, I'll give you that.
[Post New]04/14/2009 15:40
Anonymous
But many people who are being laid off in other industries did not spend $100k or more to get the post-bach degree required to get into BigLaw. Moreover, in most cases these are people who are just graduating from law school, interviewed and got offers ages ago, and are NOW being told that they can't work. I don't think it is unethical to help them pay the student loan debt, especially when the payment is contingent upon them doing public service legal work. Now, I bet a lot of them won't be able to get those jobs because they gov't agencies (fed, state and local) won't be able to figure out how to get them hired.
[Post New]04/14/2009 15:52
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:But many people who are being laid off in other industries did not spend $100k or more to get the post-bach degree required to get into BigLaw. Moreover, in most cases these are people who are just graduating from law school, interviewed and got offers ages ago, and are NOW being told that they can't work. I don't think it is unethical to help them pay the student loan debt, especially when the payment is contingent upon them doing public service legal work. Now, I bet a lot of them won't be able to get those jobs because they gov't agencies (fed, state and local) won't be able to figure out how to get them hired.


Sure, but the NYT article in question was about Skadden's program to pay associates (not current law students) to take a year off. There is no requirement that they do any public interest work.
[Post New]04/14/2009 15:52
Anonymous
Some of these associates are mid-level, who are quite valuable in terms of billing and expertise to their firms. Paying them a third of their salary to take a year off is a good way of retaining them until the economy picks up again. It's just business sense.
[Post New]04/14/2009 15:54
Anonymous
Skadden spouse here. Skadden isn't laying off these attorneys. As I understand it, they have the option of applying for the program, and aren't guaranteed their same job when they return. They can technically do anything they want with their year -- $80k buys a lot of underwater basketweaving supplies -- but I would imagine that odds of a successful return are higher if they spend the time doing something remotely law-related.
[Post New]04/14/2009 17:03
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Some of these associates are mid-level, who are quite valuable in terms of billing and expertise to their firms. Paying them a third of their salary to take a year off is a good way of retaining them until the economy picks up again. It's just business sense.


All true. It would be much more expensive for Skadden to try and re-hire the talent they'll need when the economy picks back up again. Between recruiter fees and the cost of everyone's time (reviewing/selecting resumes, interviewing, negotiating terms, orientation and integration efforts etc.) it would cost the firm way more than $80k per lawyer. Once the economy picks up, they're going to need these people back and ready to go.
[Post New]04/14/2009 17:18
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Some of these associates are mid-level, who are quite valuable in terms of billing and expertise to their firms. Paying them a third of their salary to take a year off is a good way of retaining them until the economy picks up again. It's just business sense.


All true. It would be much more expensive for Skadden to try and re-hire the talent they'll need when the economy picks back up again. Between recruiter fees and the cost of everyone's time (reviewing/selecting resumes, interviewing, negotiating terms, orientation and integration efforts etc.) it would cost the firm way more than $80k per lawyer. Once the economy picks up, they're going to need these people back and ready to go.


That's an optimistic view. I think this bust is going to have long-lasting, far-reaching effects in BigLaw. I doubt that the majority of quasi-laid-off lawyers get a job back in a year. But maybe I'm disillusioned.
[Post New]04/14/2009 17:24
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Some of these associates are mid-level, who are quite valuable in terms of billing and expertise to their firms. Paying them a third of their salary to take a year off is a good way of retaining them until the economy picks up again. It's just business sense.


All true. It would be much more expensive for Skadden to try and re-hire the talent they'll need when the economy picks back up again. Between recruiter fees and the cost of everyone's time (reviewing/selecting resumes, interviewing, negotiating terms, orientation and integration efforts etc.) it would cost the firm way more than $80k per lawyer. Once the economy picks up, they're going to need these people back and ready to go.


That's an optimistic view. I think this bust is going to have long-lasting, far-reaching effects in BigLaw. I doubt that the majority of quasi-laid-off lawyers get a job back in a year. But maybe I'm disillusioned.


I think you are right. And frankly if it does take them awhile (which I don't think would be a realistic problem) the firm can leanly staff projects and have a higher profit margin. I wouldn't voluntarily take the deal, no way. There is no guarantee they'll bring you back the next year - it is easier for the firm to do that in 2010 than to layoff additional attorneys currently employed.
Forum Index » Off-Topic
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics