Seyfarth just laid off 40 attorneys, primarily senior associates and non-equity partners.
“Lean” Six Sigma indeed.
LOL at a firm who gets the majority of its associates from dozens of laterals conducting layoffs.
The ABL article is totally right. Some firms just should not have raised salaries, as they could not afford it.
I recently lateraled out of a firm in the AmLaw 50-100 in RPL. There were three noticeable differences after the firm matched Cravath (though it was one of the last firms to match):
-
The pressure on associates to bill as much as possible increased significantly. First years in any given practice group who were slow were getting staffed on matters in other groups (a practice that the firm had not previously done). Midlevels were getting heat if they weren’t finding their own work.
-
Although that firm has not [yet] started to lay off people in masse, the firm employs a model where associates are not automatically promoted from one year to the next. While you are “presumed” to be promoted from some years to other years, there are certain gate years. In years past, everyone who should have been promoted was promoted at non-gate years, while some at gate years were held back if they didn’t hit their hours or for poor performance. This past year, many associates were held back at gate years even if they hit their hours and several associates were reportedly held back at non-gate years for not hitting their hours.
-
Many benefits changed – hard benefits (e.g. higher healthcare premiums) and soft benefits (e.g. coffee machines taken away, meal allowances decreased, etc).
My new firm, which is in the AmLaw 10 for RPL, has changed nothing since the raises. They’ve actually improved many soft benefits for associates.
seems counter-productive
Dang things are looking super unsettling. I’d trade $20K for job security.
Very thankful I work at one of the “Super Rich” firms. Time for another raise to segment the market! That being said, hate to see layoffs. Good luck to all those affected.
What was the point of this post?
Compensation for crippling anxiety
Super rich firms don’t get those super rich RPL by keeping around people who don’t pull their weight.
Says the premier mentor on this fora on how to be a successful long-term Biglaw barnacle.
First Seyfarth, now Dechert.
Laying off first years too. Isnt that Latham territory?
This is worse than latham territory because its not like the legal industry is imploding. Total shit move.
There’s a reason I titled this thread “2017 Layoffs” instead of “Seyfarth Layoffs” … it’s going to be a long 6 months folks.
I’ve talked with multiple senior associates/junior partners and -anecdotally- they are overall not hopeful of the young talent that has been coming in the doors. They don’t think they’re cut out for client service - sloppy work and unresponsiveness to client/their demands. With higher pay comes higher expectations.
Anyone has any idea how “slow” the first years were? Ytd hours of what? 500? 300?
Varies. In all likelihood, close to 0 for a few months. You get stealthed. It’s also not really a big deal - I know that sounds bad, but what I’m saying is that it’s not indicative of future layoffs.
Dechert’s got the same 5or 6 people making these major hiring decisions, and policy committee or not, it’s the same people. They have never guessed right, which is why they have 100 person summer classes, and 20 the next. These people are 70, in terrible shape and aren’t supposed to work more than 3 or 4 days a week.
It’s not indicative of an industry wide problem. It’s indicative of the painful and costly transition of moving from Alzheimer’s Stage 2 to Alzheimer’s Stage 3. As they become increasingly senile, they guess on an increasingly big scale. I know this sounds like one is trivializing a painful day for many people, but the root of the problem isn’t really economic. In all honesty, it could be as simple as one old fella inadvertently reading a newspaper from 1980 when they decided to bring in 6 laterals last year.
Research the firm’s economic history, and ask yourself this: when have they ever guessed right? And are the same people who guessed wrong 10 years ago still guessing wrong today with no new people on the board? If the answer is yes and yes, we know the solution. Avoid for another 5 years - let the current board wither away and die out, and the problem will be solved.
Paul Hastings is laying off anyone that isn’t on track for over 2000 hours. I’ve heard that first years are safe, but everyone else is on the bubble. They axed 4 of counsels in my department.