Biglaw is not immune to the economy

<p>An article about some of the recent layoofs at large law firms. This sort of thing has happened at least twice in the past 25 or so years</p>

<p>IP</a> Law360 : Sonnenschein Lays Off 37 Attorneys</p>

<p>I believe that it has happened several times in recent memory. I know for sure that it happened in 2001-2002, before that in 1994-1995 and before that in 1992-1993. I think that it was relatively uncommon prior to that time.</p>

<p>abovethelawDOTcom keeps track of lay-offs. Several BIGLAW firms have done it. Others are shortening the summer for summer associates, limiting them to 8 weeks. Others are postponing start dates.</p>

<p>Did anyone ever think it was immune? If anything, it probably tracks the economy closer than any single industry!</p>

<p>I have to agree with Payne on this one - are there really any people out there who actually thought that biglaw was not correlated with the greater economy?</p>

<p>it's not that it is immune: merely, white-shoe Wall Street firms thought it infra dig to law off people. It was seen as something that is embarrassing and to be avoided at all costs, as it significantly hampers the prestige of the law firm. (it's gonna be a lot harder to get the Harvard/Yale/Stanford kids to work for you if you just lay them off at the earliest sign of distress.)</p>

<p><a href="it's%20gonna%20be%20a%20lot%20harder%20to%20get%20the%20Harvard/Yale/Stanford%20kids%20to%20work%20for%20you%20if%20you%20just%20lay%20them%20off%20at%20the%20earliest%20sign%20of%20distress.">quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wouldn't count on that, anymore than the investment banks (who go through these cycles almost annually) have difficulty getting Ivy League grads to come work for them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
it's gonna be a lot harder to get the Harvard/Yale/Stanford kids to work for you if you just lay them off at the earliest sign of distress.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have to agree with alwaysamom on this one: the elite consulting and banking firms always lay off boatloads of people during recessions. Heck, large-scale layoffs have already started in investment banking, and will continue through the rest of the year. Yet they never seem to have any problem in attracting Harvard/Yale/Stanford kids when times are good. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/business/16layoff.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/business/16layoff.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Biglaw used to see it as something to be ashamed of and did it secretly. That has changed. in the last couple of downturns, it was viewed as a business decision just like with any other business. It does not hurt recruiting, because memories are incredibly short and most people do not really believe it will happen to them.</p>

<p>At least among NYC biglaw firms, it is still seem as something shameful to lay off associates during rough times. Most of the NYC firms that lay off associates do so quietly, by means of often suddenly dismal performance reviews in December. These associates are often given a few months in the office without work to seek new jobs (in fact, some firms go so far as to offer outplacement assistance during this time) instead of being given severance pay. Allowing these associates to seek new jobs while maintaining the appearance of continuing employment may allow the associates to avoid the stigma that is sometimes attached to an attorney who was laid off. Of course, this is done not so much for the laid off associate's benefit but rather so that the law firm can keep things quiet.</p>

<p>When law firms come on campus at T14 law schools to recruit, there is often much talk among students of which law firms laid off associates and which did not. As there have never been (to my knowledge) lay offs across all law firms, the ones who did not lay off associate do indeed benefit in the recruiting process in that the most desired law students who have many choices of employers often seem to take into consideration firm reputation, on which recent lay offs may have a great impact. </p>

<p>I have often heard conversations among attorneys (and participated in these conversations myself years ago) discussing how the tradeoff that bankers make for much better compensation and bonuses is that their jobs are much less secure in tough times. Lawyers settle for less money as a trade-off for more security. If lay offs at biglaw firms become the norm, that paradigm may well change.</p>

<p>Wow I did not know this. <em>roll eyes</em> What am I going to do? Will I ever get a chance to work 90 hours a week, burn out after 3 years, and end up having a mid life crisis at 30?</p>