OP - I was in a very similar situation back in the 2008-2009 era (less the recent parental leave). 7th year female associate at a DC big law firm in a practice area where the hours had dried up. My annual reviews, including the most recent a few months before, had all been stellar. And then one day a partner met with me and informed me that I was on the list to be terminated for poor performance, but if I agreed to start looking for a job, the firm would let me hang around for 6 months (very generous, in retrospect). The partner could not describe where I had performed poorly.

I was in shock. I was emotionally devastated and it shook my confidence. But I reasoned that I didn't want to fight to stay at a place that didn't want me, so I started looking. The partners were all very supportive, with several connecting me with their clients to discuss potential in-house roles. Another partner connected me to several attorneys in the federal government, so I could learn more about roles there. The firm also paid for career counseling/resume building.

[all of this support was of course completely inconsistent with an imminent termination for poor performance.]

It took about 45 days, but I landed a great job in-house, and the firm threw me a very nice farewell party when I left. And as it turned out, the in-house role was a great one for me and much better than law firm life. I remain in contact with many of those partners and have used them as references when applying for other positions.

Based on my experience, I really recommend that you take the long-term view. Yes, this really stings, and I get the appeal of arguing retaliation, of pushing for more severance. But....I think you will be far better off in the long run if you use this as an opportunity to find a new and better role.

If you are going to ask for anything, I would ask for a) more time with your name on the website and your work email account active and b) placement counseling. I would also talk to individual partners and see if they are aware of any positions opening up with clients. Do some networking.

It sounds odd, but in a way you have received a gift - you can look for a new role without worrying too much about concealing it from your current employer, and you can do it with the full support of the firm. Take this chance to evaluate your career and then move in the direction that you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that what the PIP said? It contained no terms or conditions for improvement? Did OP ever say what was in the PIP? I thought OP said the form said something about "two years down the road," several pages back.

*firm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If they wanted to retaliate for taking leave, it seems like your reviews in november, which were after your leave, would not have been great.

This is op. My review/evaluation was in November however the partners wrote the reviews months prior.

It’s complete bullshit to have a review process and formal written evaluations and then a meeting with a committee member to discuss reviews only to then say “we’re not good at reviews, let’s not focus on reviews”. That’s gaslighting.

Unfortunately, it's not retaliation. The firm just doesn't have enough work. It's how BigLaw works.

If they simply don't have enough work, why not lay off instead of going the route of alleging that OP's performance is in need of improvement?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is that what the PIP said? It contained no terms or conditions for improvement? Did OP ever say what was in the PIP? I thought OP said the form said something about "two years down the road," several pages back.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that you should catch your breath for now.
I'm not sure what your LinkedIn following is like but once you are settled into a new role, you should call out the firm publicly on LinkedIn given the facts here. I'd envision a post talking about the great and supportive environment in your new place but that you feel obligated to be transparent about your exit from a place that gave you opportunities, memories, and friends. The optics are not good even though this probably wasn't illegal and the timeline is surprisingly short considering these are lawyers! Even a little indirect public shame can be a powerful thing.

Never so this

Anonymous wrote:I agree that you should catch your breath for now.
I'm not sure what your LinkedIn following is like but once you are settled into a new role, you should call out the firm publicly on LinkedIn given the facts here. I'd envision a post talking about the great and supportive environment in your new place but that you feel obligated to be transparent about your exit from a place that gave you opportunities, memories, and friends. The optics are not good even though this probably wasn't illegal and the timeline is surprisingly short considering these are lawyers! Even a little indirect public shame can be a powerful thing.

Yet again, a post with horrible advice. Trash talking a big law firm on linkedin isn't going to turn out well for OP. This sucks for OP, but she's neither the first nor the last associate to get a stealth layoff. She should take the next 60 days to talk to recruiters and lateral to another firm, and then work on exiting big law entirely. Following your advice will result in her being unemployed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If they wanted to retaliate for taking leave, it seems like your reviews in november, which were after your leave, would not have been great.

This is op. My review/evaluation was in November however the partners wrote the reviews months prior.

It’s complete bullshit to have a review process and formal written evaluations and then a meeting with a committee member to discuss reviews only to then say “we’re not good at reviews, let’s not focus on reviews”. That’s gaslighting.

Unfortunately, it's not retaliation. The firm just doesn't have enough work. It's how BigLaw works.

If that is the case lay her off. That is what companies do when they don’t have enough work. They don’t make up PIPs for strong performers.

We're not talking about "companies." We're talking about big law firms. I'm sure you have plenty of knowledge about F500 business practices. You don't have knowledge about big law practices. Please stay in your lane. This is how big law firms work -- usually they do stealth layoffs like this. https://www.biglawinvestor.com/stealth-layoff/

I agree that you should catch your breath for now.
I'm not sure what your LinkedIn following is like but once you are settled into a new role, you should call out the firm publicly on LinkedIn given the facts here. I'd envision a post talking about the great and supportive environment in your new place but that you feel obligated to be transparent about your exit from a place that gave you opportunities, memories, and friends. The optics are not good even though this probably wasn't illegal and the timeline is surprisingly short considering these are lawyers! Even a little indirect public shame can be a powerful thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m sure your adrenaline is running high and trying to process all this is a lot. I think the people who know this stuff best are giving you a really good read and it’s not retaliation. Even if it was, at the end of the day you need a new job and that’s where your energy and efforts need to go. I’d find new work, walk out with your head held high, and leave it at that!

Take a little time to let your thoughts stop swirling so you can soul search on what you want your next move to be.

+1, this is outstanding advice.

OP, retaliation sounds like a leap. Even if you're right, proving it will be nigh impossible. Sometimes that's how it goes. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/ellen-pao-and-the-sexism-you-cant-quite-prove.html
You've got to move on, as PP above advises.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This is op. lol, no. There is no more time after the 60 days. I literally pretended I had no idea what a pip was and I asked “so what happens at the end of the 60 days is there an extension usually?” And the HR manager said “there was an instance where we gave an extension because the 60 day window was during the holidays” LOLLL so it’s safe to say no extension.

NP and did they confirm severance terms (3 months paid + 3 months on website)?

This is op. There was no discussion about severance at all or stay on website. There was no opportunity for me to speak which is better because I can follow up in writing and it will be a paper trail. They sent me the pip as an email and asked me to sign which I have not. I plan to make comments to it and send back.

This sucks, OP, but I think your time and energy would be better spent looking for another job at this point.

Hard to do that in 60 days. I got 3-4 months without even a hard deadline. 60 days is really unfair to OP

Anonymous wrote:This all sounds like OP was passed over for partnership -or that as part of the partner reviews they decided that OP is no longer on partner track and that there is no longer room for a senior associate who is not on partner track . This is a pretty common experience. I’m sorry that you were surprised but with all due respect - how could you be working in Big Law and not see this coming?

+1 Anyone who goes into BIGLAW should know this. The problem is that every associate who graduates from a top law school never thinks it will happen to him or her. "The Talk" only happens to other associates and s/he will be the 1-out-of-50 who will make it to partnership (or maybe 5 who will make it to Of Counsel). And it can happen at any time, even if you just came back from parental leave (and it often does, since you haven't been working/billing, and the firm got along just fine without you).

If you don't have a plan to leave BIGLAW from your first day on the job, you're not thinking objectively. If you want to make a run at BIGLAW partnership, you need to start doing things that partner-track associates are doing (writing, conference speaking, networking, etc....) Places like LinkedIn make it easy to get your articles out there for the world to read. When people comment, respond to their comments (thanking them for taking the time to comment, then answer their comment). The whole point is for you to develop an online reputation as knowledgeable in your field. In-house recruiters look for this sort of activity, and it's easy for them to click "send a message" to you about opportunities.

For the OP - this happens to 95%+ of associates. BIGLAW burns and churns associates. You didn't plan for this, but you should have. So now what? You plan your next move. Do you want FEDGOV, LOCALGOV, in-house, non-profit, etc...? Are you willing to relocate? (this will help you land something much faster). Set a deadline for what you want to pursue. You will be taking a 50% or more haircut on your BIGLAW compensation. Accept this fact and plan for it financially.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This is op. lol, no. There is no more time after the 60 days. I literally pretended I had no idea what a pip was and I asked “so what happens at the end of the 60 days is there an extension usually?” And the HR manager said “there was an instance where we gave an extension because the 60 day window was during the holidays” LOLLL so it’s safe to say no extension.

NP and did they confirm severance terms (3 months paid + 3 months on website)?

This is op. There was no discussion about severance at all or stay on website. There was no opportunity for me to speak which is better because I can follow up in writing and it will be a paper trail. They sent me the pip as an email and asked me to sign which I have not. I plan to make comments to it and send back.

OP I'm sorry to hear this and also surprised that PPs are being so harsh. I'm actually surprised a law firm would do this so close to your return from leave because it certainly has the feel of retaliation and will read that way to junior female associates etc who see what's happened. I am former big law and say this happen to people but to me this is a short runway that they're offering. It should be more time in terms of severance, benefits and passive presence (website etc) in light of your recent good review and your leave.

You shouldn't sue them, it's not worth it to your career, but they should understand they are in a delicate place and be willing to offer you something better.

Anonymous wrote:This all sounds like OP was passed over for partnership -or that as part of the partner reviews they decided that OP is no longer on partner track and that there is no longer room for a senior associate who is not on partner track . This is a pretty common experience. I’m sorry that you were surprised but with all due respect - how could you be working in Big Law and not see this coming?

Yep, I’ve been there. Was a senior associate with a career’s worth of good reviews, good reputation as a “firm citizen” (absolutely worthless in retrospect lol!), and then at year 7 the reviews aren’t materially different but are suddenly being interpreted differently in my evaluation meeting. “You’re doing everything right and we want you to be our colleague forever” suddenly became “we all love you but maybe it’s time to help you look for other options” when it was time for the firm to put up or shut up.

Fwiw, I’m better and more successful than my old firm could have ever dreamed. Spent 8 years in a 9-5 government job developing a particular expertise, and now back in the private sector as one of the few people with this skill set.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If they wanted to retaliate for taking leave, it seems like your reviews in november, which were after your leave, would not have been great.

This is op. My review/evaluation was in November however the partners wrote the reviews months prior.

It’s complete bullshit to have a review process and formal written evaluations and then a meeting with a committee member to discuss reviews only to then say “we’re not good at reviews, let’s not focus on reviews”. That’s gaslighting.

Unfortunately, it's not retaliation. The firm just doesn't have enough work. It's how BigLaw works.

If that is the case lay her off. That is what companies do when they don’t have enough work. They don’t make up PIPs for strong performers.

This all sounds like OP was passed over for partnership -or that as part of the partner reviews they decided that OP is no longer on partner track and that there is no longer room for a senior associate who is not on partner track . This is a pretty common experience. I’m sorry that you were surprised but with all due respect - how could you be working in Big Law and not see this coming?