Comments on: This Week in Layoffs – 2/13/09

By: lawshucks

lawshucks — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:20:58 +0000

Thanks for the support. We're pretty arbitrary about how we define BigLaw. It's basically what I and my friends think it is, based on our experience. For now, when I'm on the fence, I send an email to half a dozen people and ask them - majority wins. The methodology gives a little information: http://lawshucks.com/layoff-tracker/#methodology&... /> We don't exactly follow the AmLaw 100 or Vault rankings or anything else scientific. It's purely our subjective assessment of what constitutes "BigLaw." There are certainly firms toward the latter parts of those rankings that we just have never come across in our practice, so we don't think of them as BigLaw. If you want a firm added to the list, just send us the source and if it's reasonably close, we'll add it.

By: IUtoNYC

IUtoNYC — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:33:13 +0000

I like the idea of keeping the tracker to BigLaw. However, how exactly are you defining that term? AmLaw 200? Vault 100? Doesn't really matter to me. Just curious.

And I concur with the others–great work here. While Above the Law's new comment policy seems to have helped stem some of the immaturity, I still prefer the big-boy attitude of this site.

By: mnb8218

mnb8218 — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:07:17 +0000

Ditto gargamel – I really like this new site. Thanks for all the hard work.

By: gargamel

gargamel — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:19:18 +0000

Yo LS, this site is amazing – keep up the hardwork on tracking this stuff and your other articles. I agree with your "arbitrary" standard for BigLaw layoffs – there is a lot of data out there now and there has to be some measurement standard. what a gruesome world – thanks for putting all this together.