Comments on: More Hypocrisy in Stealth Layoffs http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/ A self-deprecating look at life in and after BigLaw Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:07:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Done http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-1376 Done Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:14:10 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-1376 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. 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.

]]> By: Barry http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-721 Barry Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:11:04 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-721 "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.

]]> By: Pef http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-716 Pef Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:27:47 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-716 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. 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.

]]> By: Malby http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-715 Malby Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:25:37 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-715 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.

]]> By: Malby http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-714 Malby Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:22:36 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-714 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. 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.

]]> By: Onions http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-573 Onions Wed, 06 May 2009 19:05:24 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-573 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?

]]> By: Elizabeth Zelinka http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-571 Elizabeth Zelinka Wed, 06 May 2009 16:32:03 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-571 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 be.

]]> By: Elizabeth Zelinka http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-570 Elizabeth Zelinka Wed, 06 May 2009 16:30:29 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-570 I could not agree more. I could not agree more.

]]> By: lawshucks http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-569 lawshucks Wed, 06 May 2009 16:25:57 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-569 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 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

]]> By: Elizabeth Zelinka http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-stealth-layoffs/#comment-568 Elizabeth Zelinka Wed, 06 May 2009 16:14:24 +0000 http://lawshucks.com/?p=789#comment-568 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.

]]>