Pic: U. Chicago
We’ve written previously about the inapropriateness of firms’ laying off first years, but now we’re tracking an even more-alarming trend. The “gentlemen’s agreement” of a stealth layoff (assuming you don’t think they’re repugnant in the first place, as we do) is that the firm maintains a public face both as to its own financial strength and the laid-off attorneys’ competence.
(For those laypersons who heard about us from Bloomberg, welcome! – FYI a “stealth layoff” is when firms lay off attorneys supposedly for performance reasons, but in fact are doing so by imposing arbitrarily tighter standards due to economic conditions. We think it’s disingenuous to say attorneys who would otherwise, in a normal market, be perfectly acceptable, should be branded inadequate when the firms are laying off people for their own ulterior motives.)
The stealth-layoff model only works when there are very few firms engaged in stealth layoffs. The data clearly indicate otherwise. Every recruiter and headhunter knows that someone would have to be completely insane to be leaving a firm voluntarily right now. So candidates are already guaranteed one strike. The difference is whether the strike is for being completely irrational in career choices or for being laid off for “performance” reasons. Neither makes for a good first impression.
The other component of the “gentlemen’s agreement” of stealth layoffs is the terms on which the departed wind up their affairs. Here’s how a stealth layoff is supposed to work. The attorneys are given use of their office and secretary, their work is promptly and fully shifted to other attorneys, the partners actively work the rolodex for the associates, career counseling and training services (interview skills, resume polishing, etc.) are provided, and warm recommendations are given.
All of this is designed to facilitate subsequent employment. Furthermore, when done right, it maintains the fiction that the firm doing the stealth layoff is actually viable, because (or so the thinking goes) its attorneys who are on the market are qualified and competent. In return, the associates don’t badmouth the firm (which is often self-destructive behavior anyway, but that’s a story for another day).
How the firms are breaking their side of the deal, after the jump.
The key component for the affected associates is the ability to focus full time, typically for a period of three months, on finding the next job. That’s a little difficult to do when you’re getting more work than ever before! According to one tipster (from one of the whitest-shod firms out there),
The worst part about the layoffs is that these associates are still expected to come to work and are even getting new assignments, which makes an active job search very difficult. Laid-off associates risk accusations of “unprofessional behavior” and poor recommendations to potential future employers if they were to turn down an assignment, and certain partners are using this fact to bully some laid-off associates. … I was also told that the firm would give me great flexibility to perform a job search. Since the first of the year, and after being asked to leave the firm, I have received two large new assignments and have worked more hours per week than I did at any time in 2008. I am puzzled how I can at the same time be not up to the standard that [my firm] expects but be critical to the first new work that the group has had in months.
We find this appalling. It puts associates in an untenable situation: focus on the job search at the risk of getting no support from the firm, or cram the job search in around the edges in a vain hope of winning back the job.
Despite the threat of bullying, I’d probably call their bluff. What are they going to do, fire you? I understand it’s a difficult decision, and the interpersonal dynamics of saying “fuck you” to the partners who trained you are daunting, but they’ve said “fuck you” to you already. Learn from their lesson: behave selfishly. They’ve already shown that they’re going to behave strictly in line with their own best interests, including by throwing you under the bus, so use every single resource they make available. Be polite about it, but be firm and aggressive. They’ve got contacts everywhere, make them use them.
At the end of the day, there is almost no chance that you’ll get your old job back and, even if you did, you’ll always know that you’re the first one they’ll get rid of the next time there’s some difficulty.
What say you?
Related posts:
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Steal office paper, pens, toner. Get a chair if you can.
Steal office paper, pens, toner. Get a chair if you can.
you do realize that stealing office supplies is, well, stealing?
you do realize that stealing office supplies is, well, stealing?
The stealth layoffs continue based on the many lawyers I am currently counseling. These professionals apparently cut it at their law firms just fine for 6 or 7 hard years, and suddenly, they are "just not what we look for in an associate." It is almost impossible to understand how lawyers can treat their colleagues this way. And if law firms believe that this sort of underhanded behavior is not affecting the loyalty and morale of the rest of its associates, they really ought to think again.
The stealth layoffs continue based on the many lawyers I am currently counseling. These professionals apparently cut it at their law firms just fine for 6 or 7 hard years, and suddenly, they are "just not what we look for in an associate." It is almost impossible to understand how lawyers can treat their colleagues this way. And if law firms believe that this sort of underhanded behavior is not affecting the loyalty and morale of the rest of its associates, they really ought to think again.
The sense of entitlement in the legal profession is just astounding. In any other profession, there's no suggestion that companies have some kind of moral obligation to keep on underperformers or low performers when the market it tight. What you call the firm's "ulterior motives" is just plain and simple economics — in tough times, the worst performers have got to go. That these lawyers may be valuable to the firm in better economic times is irrelevant — they might not be bad lawyers, but if they're the worst in the firm they have to go. What you call the "hypocrisy" of stealth layoffs is actually incredibly generous when compared to how layoffs go down in other industries — it is, essentially, three months severance with benefits.
In summary, it's called at-will employment, people — and it applies to lawyers as much as to anyone else in this country. Grow up, get used to it.
I have no problem with layoffs, whether the impetus is performance or the economy. The problem I have is with the firms that are throwing their former attorneys under the bus by couching layoffs that are actually motivated by economic needs as performance based. If a firm has to cut because it's foundering (or wants to stave off foundering), it should be forthright about its reasoning
I could not agree more.
We all know that layoffs are performance-based, in one sense–the firm is laying off the associates it prefers least to retain. Unless they let go an entire department, there will be some cherry-picking and that implicitly involves someone's judgment about performance.
Sounds like you are not a member of the legal profession, and therefore, are perhaps not in a position to know what is and is not hypocrisy in that context? The hypocrisy stems from the stark difference between the messages law firms give associates when they recruit them and the way they later discharge them. The fact that layoffs have not been a part of the law firm culture has little to do with entitlement–it has to do with cultural norms inside of that unique and decidedly non-corporate context. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, as uninformed as it may be.
The sense of entitlement in the legal profession is just astounding. In any other profession, there's no suggestion that companies have some kind of moral obligation to keep on underperformers or low performers when the market it tight. What you call the firm's "ulterior motives" is just plain and simple economics — in tough times, the worst performers have got to go. That these lawyers may be valuable to the firm in better economic times is irrelevant — they might not be bad lawyers, but if they're the worst in the firm they have to go. What you call the "hypocrisy" of stealth layoffs is actually incredibly generous when compared to how layoffs go down in other industries — it is, essentially, three months severance with benefits.
In summary, it's called at-will employment, people — and it applies to lawyers as much as to anyone else in this country. Grow up, get used to it.
I have no problem with layoffs, whether the impetus is performance or the economy. The problem I have is with the firms that are throwing their former attorneys under the bus by couching layoffs that are actually motivated by economic needs as performance based. If a firm has to cut because it's foundering (or wants to stave off foundering), it should be forthright about its reasoning
I could not agree more.
We all know that layoffs are performance-based, in one sense–the firm is laying off the associates it prefers least to retain. Unless they let go an entire department, there will be some cherry-picking and that implicitly involves someone's judgment about performance.
Sounds like you are not a member of the legal profession, and therefore, are perhaps not in a position to know what is and is not hypocrisy in that context? The hypocrisy stems from the stark difference between the messages law firms give associates when they recruit them and the way they later discharge them. The fact that layoffs have not been a part of the law firm culture has little to do with entitlement–it has to do with cultural norms inside of that unique and decidedly non-corporate context. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, as uninformed as it may be.
Sounds like you are not a member of the legal profession, and therefore, are perhaps not in a position to know what is and is not hypocrisy in that context? The hypocrisy stems from the stark difference between the messages law firms give associates when they recruit them and the way they later discharge them. The fact that layoffs have not been a part of the law firm culture has little to do with entitlement–it has to do with cultural norms inside of that unique and decidedly non-corporate context. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, as uninformed as it may.
Sounds like you are not a member of the legal profession, and therefore, are perhaps not in a position to know what is and is not hypocrisy in that context? The hypocrisy stems from the stark difference between the messages law firms give associates when they recruit them and the way they later discharge them. The fact that layoffs have not been a part of the law firm culture has little to do with entitlement–it has to do with cultural norms inside of that unique and decidedly non-corporate context. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, as uninformed as it may.
Elizabeth Zelinka, are you related to the Mrs. Marina Litvinenko that is filling up my junk box with proposals to assist moving USD$9.5M given to her husband before his death by Mr. Berezovsky, a Russian Billionaire Exiled in UK for exposing an alleged plot to assassinate him by the Russian Authority and to investigate the death of Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian Journalist believed to have equally been posoned by the Kremlin for writing a book: The Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy depicting Russia as a country where human rights are routinely trampled?
Elizabeth Zelinka, are you related to the Mrs. Marina Litvinenko that is filling up my junk box with proposals to assist moving USD$9.5M given to her husband before his death by Mr. Berezovsky, a Russian Billionaire Exiled in UK for exposing an alleged plot to assassinate him by the Russian Authority and to investigate the death of Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian Journalist believed to have equally been posoned by the Kremlin for writing a book: The Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy depicting Russia as a country where human rights are routinely trampled?
Ms. Zelinka–the hypocrisy is there, yes–in how law firms treat associates in recruitment. They are treated as if they are the most important asset of the firm, when they are not–they are, in this environment–a real detriment. Clients no longer want to pay for them to ramble along at outrageous billing rates, knowing little or nothing of substance, running up leverage profits for their partners. So axing them is not hypocritical; hiring them the way they did is.
Ms. Zelinka–the hypocrisy is there, yes–in how law firms treat associates in recruitment. They are treated as if they are the most important asset of the firm, when they are not–they are, in this environment–a real detriment. Clients no longer want to pay for them to ramble along at outrageous billing rates, knowing little or nothing of substance, running up leverage profits for their partners. So axing them is not hypocritical; hiring them the way they did is.
And the main article in a waste–would the associate prefer a sudden departure with no pay? I don't think so. Poor, poor associate–thought the world was coming on a silver platter. Lots of folks are in much more dire straits, I assure you.
The pay is conditioned on agreeing to keep terms of departure confidential, the lump sum is payment of all wages owed, and waiving rights to sue (remember those "firmwide" cutbacks memorialized only in conveniently vague documents and described to employees individually, despite prior practice of presenting new policies). Deceptively maintaining the firms' financial strength requires unbending adherence to an inflexible business model that is no longer effective and perpetuating the major problems of the legal profession: tremendous debt from loans due to perpetuating belief of large salaries (it's not a coincidence first year salaries get published but not the junior associates despite the lockstep system), to justify large first year salaries the firm will fight alternative fee arrangements because billable hours lets the firm charge clients to train employees while a first year isn't as profitable under flexible fee arrangement (profitability requires effective application of experience, resource, and institutional knowledge; things held by older generation of partners who likely now focus on own practice, not the greater good and can never seem to communicate to IT what they know in a way IT can create the most efficient system of managing knowledge).
These problems restrict the public's access to legal services because lawyers are expensive and have less time for pro bono due to the practical limits of billable hour requirement.
As for performance measured by billable hours, the young associate has little control over the type and quantity of work assigned to them. Collection goals is the other measurement, which is deceptive because application of a client payment to the attorneys on the case is made by a partner. Further, firms set these goals despite knowing it is impossible to obtain merely by working the required number of hours because clients will protest and get discounts or other options. Effectively charging a young lawyer for their on the job training shouldn't be labeled a performance measure but should be reflected in the salary.
And the main article in a waste–would the associate prefer a sudden departure with no pay? I don't think so. Poor, poor associate–thought the world was coming on a silver platter. Lots of folks are in much more dire straits, I assure you.
The pay is conditioned on agreeing to keep terms of departure confidential, the lump sum is payment of all wages owed, and waiving rights to sue (remember those "firmwide" cutbacks memorialized only in conveniently vague documents and described to employees individually, despite prior practice of presenting new policies). Deceptively maintaining the firms' financial strength requires unbending adherence to an inflexible business model that is no longer effective and perpetuating the major problems of the legal profession: tremendous debt from loans due to perpetuating belief of large salaries (it's not a coincidence first year salaries get published but not the junior associates despite the lockstep system), to justify large first year salaries the firm will fight alternative fee arrangements because billable hours lets the firm charge clients to train employees while a first year isn't as profitable under flexible fee arrangement (profitability requires effective application of experience, resource, and institutional knowledge; things held by older generation of partners who likely now focus on own practice, not the greater good and can never seem to communicate to IT what they know in a way IT can create the most efficient system of managing knowledge).
These problems restrict the public's access to legal services because lawyers are expensive and have less time for pro bono due to the practical limits of billable hour requirement.
As for performance measured by billable hours, the young associate has little control over the type and quantity of work assigned to them. Collection goals is the other measurement, which is deceptive because application of a client payment to the attorneys on the case is made by a partner. Further, firms set these goals despite knowing it is impossible to obtain merely by working the required number of hours because clients will protest and get discounts or other options. Effectively charging a young lawyer for their on the job training shouldn't be labeled a performance measure but should be reflected in the salary.
"It puts associates in an untenable situation: focus on the job search at the risk of getting no support from the firm, or cram the job search in around the edges in a vain hope of winning back the job."
I'd make d*mn sure that my added work was undocumented. If they don't wish to hire me as a consultant later, that's their tough luck.
"It puts associates in an untenable situation: focus on the job search at the risk of getting no support from the firm, or cram the job search in around the edges in a vain hope of winning back the job."
I'd make d*mn sure that my added work was undocumented. If they don't wish to hire me as a consultant later, that's their tough luck.