If you haven’t seen the Battle at Kruger, go watch it now. That video and a tip got us thinking, how are the firms deciding exactly who is in scope of all the layoffs? Who is the baby water buffalo? (And, for that matter, who are the crocodiles?)
Sure, the firms would have you believe that each layoff is based exclusively on the individual attorney’s skills and performancel and the needs and prospects of the practice group. But there could never be an ulterior motive, could there?
According to our source, Proskauer Rose‘s December layoffs of 1st years (class of 2008)
were based on 2 criteria—departmental assignment and whether they had graduated from New York law schools (where the firm does most of its recruiting). Associates who were assigned to the corporate department and were from non-New York law schools, even top tier schools, were the primary targets, virtually without regard to other considerations. Retained first year associates included those from second or third tier schools who had failed to pass the bar exam but who had graduated from law schools in the city.
We haven’t gotten confirmation from anyone at Proskauer yet, but we did hear anecdotal evidence of similar criteria being applied at other firms. Apparently, no firm wants to poop where it eats. It’s a lot easier to have disgruntled Stanford alumni talking about your firm when you rarely hire anyone from there in the New York office. The other theme we heard from our contacts was that laterals were also subject to more-stringent scrutiny than “home grown” associates.
Our favorite selection factor? We heard about a California firm that in 2001-02 laid off a disproportionate number of Canadian lawyers.
Have you heard or noticed similar factors at work?
Related posts:
