Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were in a company this would be retaliation. Absolutely mention this in writing and ask as politely as possible if your leave was part of the decision especially since your reviews were all great - the whole our reviews exist but don’t really matter is BS. Look at the facts and paper trail - great reviews, no warnings of issues, took leave, bam, PIP. I don’t care that it’s a law firm this is BS and it’s because you’re a mom and took leave.

Law is a small industry. Unless OP is moving to a job where her reputation no longer matters nor does blackballing- i.e. a federal judgeship or a tenured faculty role at a law school, she can't call them out publicly. It's a crappy industry in desperate need a of reform, but that will never happen because the people who write regulations are members of the industry

+100. I don’t know which shocks me more: the people who think law firms are a true meritocracy and they are unequivocally deserving of their partner positions OR the people who think they can really go up against these firms and win. It’s rarely worth the damage to the individual lawyer’s career - and these firms know it.

I know one person who successfully got back at a firm they think unfairly pushed them out. They played the good soldier and got great recommendations. They ended up going in house with the practice group's largest client and moved up. Once they were in a position to farm out work, they moved their every matter to a different firm without warning. They are the exception to the rule. Most people who try to bad mouth firms or complain are screaming into a vacuum. I don't know any other industry where people forced out refer to themselves as alumni and still maintain an affinity for the employer who effectively said they weren't good enough.

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.

OP: You have written repeatedly that work in your department is slow. A layoff when there is insufficient work is not retaliation. Nevertheless, the manner in which your firm is handling the layoff--under the guise of low quality work justifying a PIP--is inappropriate if not justified by an inferior work product.

My suggestion is to meet with an attorney who specializes in employment law for advice on how to proceed at this time to negotiate a more generous parting compensation package. Do this in a stealth manner ASAP (do not let on that you are consulting with an employment law attorney).

At this level OP needs to be starting her own book of business, whether bringing in new clients or bringing in new matters for existing clients. You don’t magically make partner in Biglaw because you get stellar reviews year after year. That stellar performance needs to equate to earning a reputation within the firm that you are irreplaceable on someone’s team so that partner goes to bat for you in front of leadership (and honestly you need more than 1 partner leveraging for you) AND you need to have a proven track record of managing a team, delegating work, and bringing in new matters (as in you are basically acting like a partner). Being excellent service partner material will NOT cut it in 2024.

It sounds like to me that OP was just service material: she provided excellent service to her managing partner(s) well but was not showing any capability or effort to pounding the pavement and making the firm new money. She’s become to expensive, given all her years of experience, to keep around as a sr associate. A client is going to look at the bill and complain that they’re paying too much for her work when someone lower and cheaper can do the same work (and they’re right).

It may not seem fair and something similar happened to me but that’s the way it works. I’m sorry.

I feel very bad for OP, and I have been posting all along that I'd be surprised if they were letting her go this close to leave. The facts here are a little unusual. But a few more comments:

- This is exactly how law firms let people go. Few associates have "performance issues". So when there's not enough work to go around, by necessity, the firm will be letting go of totally competent associates.
- What other non law industries do (PIP, only lay off for performance issues, give you a chance to improve) isn't relevant to biglaw, where there is a well understood system.
- OP's severance is atypically short. I would push back there.
- OP said she was just back from leave. But she came back in September. That's potentially 5 full months ago. We are now starting to creep into the territory of no longer being fresh back from leave.
- Having seen a lot of associates in my biglaw career, partners rarely dislike associates. Associates have great resumes, are always exceptionally bright, and went through significant interviews to ensure culture match. Mostly, we partners would describe associates as anywhere from perfectly nice and good worker, to awesome rockstar. But nonetheless, there is a clearly different preference/energy vis a vis the rockstar associates versus the perfectly good associates. I've been in both camps at different points in my career. When you're in the former camp, everyone likes you, you get work, you get good feedback, but what's missing is the extra thing where you can tell they are grooming you for better things. It may not even be about you; it may just be that each partner in your group has an existing relationship with a rockstar associate who they prefer working with, and they will happily give you the overflow work. But you're just not getting the same access to work and clients and gossip and mentoring as those rockstars. I could see that happening at my old firm, and that's literally why I left (despite good reviews). At my new firm, i ultimately found myself in that place for a few years (a same-year attorney actively trying to push me out of the group because she wanted all work to funnel through her), and then the other attorney left and my status changed instantly back to rockstar. But in both those periods, I was getting good feedback, I was good at my job, people liked me, but I could see that the minute the market turned, I'd be let go. The point of that story is that there is no way OP's firm is letting her go if she is a rockstar. I'm sure she is very good at her job and well liked. But the writing would have been on the wall before her leave if you were looking for it. That is the law firm contract: They will pay you absurd amounts of money for you to make them absurd amounts of money, but if you can't do that anymore, then you are out. You just need to be acutely aware of that on a daily basis in your job and can't ever assume that just because people like you and you do a good job, you won't get fired. This is commonly known in lawfirms and associates that put blinders on do so at their own peril.

I think great recession was different, where some firms were laying off whole summer associate classes, etc. Totally different beast.

Ultimately i think OP will be fine. There are tons of firms and industries that are hiring, espeically if you're willing to open your mind to different practices.

OP, I know it's super hard to take this news. The reality is the economy isn't great at the moment and a lot of people are getting laid off. If the economy were great, you are right, this conversation wouldn't be needed. Chin up, it isn't you. You will find a new home. Start networking!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were in a company this would be retaliation. Absolutely mention this in writing and ask as politely as possible if your leave was part of the decision especially since your reviews were all great - the whole our reviews exist but don’t really matter is BS. Look at the facts and paper trail - great reviews, no warnings of issues, took leave, bam, PIP. I don’t care that it’s a law firm this is BS and it’s because you’re a mom and took leave.

Law is a small industry. Unless OP is moving to a job where her reputation no longer matters nor does blackballing- i.e. a federal judgeship or a tenured faculty role at a law school, she can't call them out publicly. It's a crappy industry in desperate need a of reform, but that will never happen because the people who write regulations are members of the industry

+100. I don’t know which shocks me more: the people who think law firms are a true meritocracy and they are unequivocally deserving of their partner positions OR the people who think they can really go up against these firms and win. It’s rarely worth the damage to the individual lawyer’s career - and these firms know it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congrats that you made it work but uff! this is probably hard to take right now for OP who stuck out biglaw long enough to become a senior associate…spending 9 years of making less than a first year biglaw associate without that nice annual biglaw bonus is a lot of money left on the table. I don’t think a GS14-step 10 pay even with the DC COLA bump is on par with first year salaries is it? but glad it worked out for you. Hopefully you share that happiness with the young associates around you. Firms could use more partners that are content with their life choices.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Similar. I was a “rockstar” getting great reviews from hard to impress partners. Economic downtown in the group led to many of us being coached out.

Anonymous wrote:If you were in a company this would be retaliation. Absolutely mention this in writing and ask as politely as possible if your leave was part of the decision especially since your reviews were all great - the whole our reviews exist but don’t really matter is BS. Look at the facts and paper trail - great reviews, no warnings of issues, took leave, bam, PIP. I don’t care that it’s a law firm this is BS and it’s because you’re a mom and took leave.

Law is a small industry. Unless OP is moving to a job where her reputation no longer matters nor does blackballing- i.e. a federal judgeship or a tenured faculty role at a law school, she can't call them out publicly. It's a crappy industry in desperate need a of reform, but that will never happen because the people who write regulations are members of the industry

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were in a company this would be retaliation. Absolutely mention this in writing and ask as politely as possible if your leave was part of the decision especially since your reviews were all great - the whole our reviews exist but don’t really matter is BS. Look at the facts and paper trail - great reviews, no warnings of issues, took leave, bam, PIP. I don’t care that it’s a law firm this is BS and it’s because you’re a mom and took leave.

I think the only thing the firm did wrong here was accusing her of poor performance. They should have just been upfront about the real issue. But if any senior associate wanted to make partner but had low hours even accounting for maternity leave, I'd tell them they don't have a shot unless they find more ways to bill. It doesn't matter that the lack of hours isn't your fault. And it doesn't matter how good your work is if the firm can't justify your salary.

It's hard to make partner and the solid majority of associates don't make it. Sometimes getting counseled out is going to coincide with a leave. It's also going to happen more abruptly if there isn't more work to go around. Sometimes crappy things just happen.

But I 100% believe that she should get more time and a severance. I'm sure the firm has money for that.

Anonymous wrote:If you were in a company this would be retaliation. Absolutely mention this in writing and ask as politely as possible if your leave was part of the decision especially since your reviews were all great - the whole our reviews exist but don’t really matter is BS. Look at the facts and paper trail - great reviews, no warnings of issues, took leave, bam, PIP. I don’t care that it’s a law firm this is BS and it’s because you’re a mom and took leave.

I think the only thing the firm did wrong here was accusing her of poor performance. They should have just been upfront about the real issue. But if any senior associate wanted to make partner but had low hours even accounting for maternity leave, I'd tell them they don't have a shot unless they find more ways to bill. It doesn't matter that the lack of hours isn't your fault. And it doesn't matter how good your work is if the firm can't justify your salary.

It's hard to make partner and the solid majority of associates don't make it. Sometimes getting counseled out is going to coincide with a leave. It's also going to happen more abruptly if there isn't more work to go around. Sometimes crappy things just happen.

If you were in a company this would be retaliation. Absolutely mention this in writing and ask as politely as possible if your leave was part of the decision especially since your reviews were all great - the whole our reviews exist but don’t really matter is BS. Look at the facts and paper trail - great reviews, no warnings of issues, took leave, bam, PIP. I don’t care that it’s a law firm this is BS and it’s because you’re a mom and took leave.

We’ve all seen this happen to people who take a lot of leave. Parental leave, bereavement leave, medical leave. Whatever. Firm doesn’t have enough work, those folks are first on the chopping block.

OP, you would have a hard time proving any kind of discrimination or retaliation claim because almost certainly your firm has done the same to many people who took leave for other reasons or otherwise had lost hours, or any host of things. They fire people all the time so it won’t be hard for them to find comparators. You could go back to them and say this feels retaliatory and try to negotiate a longer runway, like 4 months. But at the end of the day you just need to get out. I saw this happen to too many people when I was in Biglaw, and left myself before they could do it to me. It’s really common. Law suits don’t help. Even when plaintiffs win, it’s a pyhrric victory. Law suits destroy lives and careers. And I say that as an employment lawyer. I’d only counsel a suit if it was truly egregious and someone had no better options - and wanted to take a stand. For most people, it’s better to take the severance or time and move on. Screw the firm by landing on your feet. They don’t care about you and you should not care about them.

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 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?

Read the PPs. It's called a stealth layoff and it's common in big law. Big law is different from other industries.

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.

OP, I get that this is a tough situation for you, but it’s unlikely to be retaliation. Big Law is up or out, and strong performance at the mid- to senior associate level is not a guarantee of advancement. There are many things that are more likely to be the cause of something like this, practice group economics being the major driver in most cases. It’s unfortunate and a bad practice that some firms are not more candid when it’s an economic decision, I think it’s fairer to people to shoot straight.

I’m not sure how it is at your firm, at ours maternity leave is an understood and anticipated cost of doing business—admittedly frustrating to cover gaps at times, but in the “I wish so and so were here” sense not the “so and so is going to pay for not being here” sense—and getting rid of someone as “retaliation” the moment they are back and able to work and make money for you is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Maternity leave is routine and anticipated, I’ve never heard anyone ever sound mad about it in a way that might suggest retaliation.

Big Law firms are all about the money these days, and it’s likely just optimizing headcount relative to anticipated demand, as cold as that sounds. The PIP thing as described here is a little confusing though, typically I would expect a PIP to say “you need to do X, y, or z” and if you don’t achieve those targets we will have to consider letting you go, with some sort of severance/job hunting period thereafter. Is there anything like that in what they asked you to do? My guess is that you are being treated better than a similarly situated associate to manage the optics of this decision coming shortly after maternity leave, and that has that not been in play this decision would have come sooner.