Things are either quieting down or it’s just the calm before the storm. We suspect the latter. Although there were more people laid off this week than last, it was still relatively quiet, particularly compared to the beginning of the month. Still, first quarter results are being calculated and it’s not going to be pretty.
Life does go on for some. Freshfields kicked off the London firms’ partnership-announcement season with news that 14 associates had made partner – just more than half the 25 of last year, though. Surprisingly, nine of the 14 were in corporate practices. Not surprisingly, none were in the US.
Of course, the layoffs continue. Clifford Chance had its eighth layoff announcement – 25 transactional lawyers in New York this time (although we note that it’s sometimes difficult to track the UK firms’ layoffs because the redundancy process sometimes includes layoffs that have been previously or are later reported as if separate). Anyway, that brings the firm’s total up to 391 (210 lawyers, 181 staff) – good for #4 on the Top Ten list.
The other big news for the week was Dechert sneaking back onto the list when it laid off 125 people – 63 lawyers, 62 staff. That brought the firm’s total to 239 (144 lawyers, 95 staff), good for the #10 spot. This is another firm that just can’t get it right. The firm has had 5 separate layoffs.
News, analysis, and context, after the jump.
Last week, we updated the ever-shrinking list of California firms with clean hands. While there are no good numbers yet, cross Quinn Emanuel off the list. The firm laid off a “handful” (reportedly six) people for “lack of work.” Hats off to you, Munger Tolles & Olsen, Gibson Dunn, and Irell & Manella. [Update: And then there were two: Gibson Dunn just announced layoffs of 36 staff]{##34##}
Texas was the region in the news this week. It’s impossible to get a straight answer out of those people. We’ve railed against stealth layoffs for a while, but AmLaw Daily did a fine job of calling the firms out. Practice among a certain set of firms down there has been to confirm layoffs when pressed but not provide any details. Baker Botts, Andrews Kurth, Gardere Wynne Sewell, and Winstead are all identified as having confirmed layoffs. Bracewell Giuliani claims it had to let a few people go for “performance reasons”. Haynes and Boone and Vinson & Elkins deny layoffs and hope to be able to avoid them going forward. We’ve had a few tips and seen a number of comments that V&E in particular is being disingenuous. Rumors of deep stealth layoffs at both firms are rampant.
The partner class of 2017 is going to be interesting as the list of firms pushing back start dates continues to grow. Most recently, Weil Gotshal is paying students to defer all the way out until January, 2011. Beware, though, the terms of these programs are in flux, and spots are increasingly hard to find.
Things aren’t looking good for the class of 2010, either. Summer programs are being canceled left and right, and the starting classes in the fall of 2010 will be full with deferred graduates from this year.
Still, lawyers are hopeless romantics. Twenty-five percent of respondents to a Robert Half survey indicate that their organizations will be adding legal personnel in the next year; 65% think staffing will remain flat. Somehow, only 10% think headcount will be lower this time next year. The report’s sponsor claims that the respondents aren’t completely offbase. He seems to be under the impression that layoffs are centered on major firms, but that “a lot of midsized firms and small firms that have busy litigation and bankruptcy practices, maybe foreclosure practices, and IP firms, continue to have demand for clients to move through cases and need to hire specialized candidates within those specialized categories.” I attribute it to lawyers’ being fundamentally incapable of assessing market conditions or reacting responsibly (rather than a panicked rush from one extreme to the other), and their inshakeable belief that they’re all above average. ABA Journal points out that last year, 45% thought there would be net hiring and only 3% of the geniuses surveyed thought there would be layoffs. How did that work out?
459 layoffs this week (200 lawyers, 259 staff)
3,238 this month (1,175 lawyers, 1,263 staff)
7,560 in calendar 2009 (2,990 lawyers, 4,570 staff)
Errata to the Layoff Tracker:
Added
- Katten Muchin 69 (23/46)
- Jenner & Block 34 (0/34)
- Mayer Brown 55 (23/32)
- Quinn Emanuel 6 (6/0)
- Dechert 125 (63/62)
- Clifford Chance 24 (24/0)
- Edwards Angell 60 (25/35)
- Gibson Dunn 36 (0/36)
- Skadden 50 (0/50)
Didn’t add but note for sake of completeness
- Indianapolis firm Bose McKinney & Evans is cutting ten attorneys, two paralegals, and 13 other staff – seven percent of its total attorneys, 11% of staff;
- UK firm Watson Benson has put more than 25% of its personnel (75 of 272), at all ranks from partners to associates to staff, in a redundancy consultation;
- Bristol UK firm Veale Wasbrough is in redundancy consultations with 26 staff – approximately 10% of its total;
- Chicago’s Goldberg Kohn has laid off nine associates and 14 staff (and since when does 77 lawyers count as “midsize”?);
- Saul Ewing cut seven associates (six in Philly, one in DC) and seven staff
Related posts:
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Rumors of deep layoffs at V&E are categorically untrue. Approximately 4 NY associates lost their jobs for performance reasons (significantly low billing for 2+ years) who might have held on in another economy, but that is it. Trust me, I would know.
Rumors of deep layoffs at V&E are categorically untrue. Approximately 4 NY associates lost their jobs for performance reasons (significantly low billing for 2+ years) who might have held on in another economy, but that is it. Trust me, I would know.
V&E is so concerned about their rep that their staff monitor these boards and stop the rumors. Yet those rumors persist and there's good reason why. V&E is a average second tier law firm that tries to compete with the big boys but just can't. Its surprising they even have a NYC office. Does anyone work there? Honestly. Assuming you're right and you lose 4 associates out of small department of say 20 attorneys, that's a 20% cut right there. And of course you don't hear about the other 8 support staff that were let go – I guess for supposedly 'performance' reasons too? If someone is not billing because they don't want to work, then fire her. If someone is not billing because there's no work to be had because the partners can't bring in business, well, I guess you fire them too but its not 'performance' based. Its lack of billing opportunity. If let them go quietly -that's a stealthy layoff and its disingenuous to say otherwise. But you can only do that for so long. Don't trust me on this one, you'll see the news break yourself.
I have first-hand information that there have been numerous stealth layoffs at V&E in multiple offices. I am a former associate (who left on my own accord a few years back), and I find V&E's practices totally disingenuous. God forbid they admit that the economy has — gasp — affected V&E like everyone else, thereby necessitating lay-offs. Associates would understand. But I find these stealth layoffs (in which "performance evaluations" used trumped-up, vague explanations or complete fabrications to justify letting the associate go), frankly, disgusting. And V&E should know – news of these stealth layoffs has gotten around law schools (via alumni associations) and other private and public sector employers. No one finds V&E's treatment of their associates acceptable, nor do they buy these were legitimate firings for one second. V&E is doing a serious disservice to associates who are nothing more than victims of a bad economy.
A complete and utter lie. V&E is not doing stealth layoffs. Simply not happening. These comments are either uninformed or dishonest.
V&E is so concerned about their rep that their staff monitor these boards and stop the rumors. Yet those rumors persist and there's good reason why. V&E is a average second tier law firm that tries to compete with the big boys but just can't. Its surprising they even have a NYC office. Does anyone work there? Honestly. Assuming you're right and you lose 4 associates out of small department of say 20 attorneys, that's a 20% cut right there. And of course you don't hear about the other 8 support staff that were let go – I guess for supposedly 'performance' reasons too? If someone is not billing because they don't want to work, then fire her. If someone is not billing because there's no work to be had because the partners can't bring in business, well, I guess you fire them too but its not 'performance' based. Its lack of billing opportunity. If let them go quietly -that's a stealthy layoff and its disingenuous to say otherwise. But you can only do that for so long. Don't trust me on this one, you'll see the news break yourself.
I have first-hand information that there have been numerous stealth layoffs at V&E in multiple offices. I am a former associate (who left on my own accord a few years back), and I find V&E's practices totally disingenuous. God forbid they admit that the economy has — gasp — affected V&E like everyone else, thereby necessitating lay-offs. Associates would understand. But I find these stealth layoffs (in which "performance evaluations" used trumped-up, vague explanations or complete fabrications to justify letting the associate go), frankly, disgusting. And V&E should know – news of these stealth layoffs has gotten around law schools (via alumni associations) and other private and public sector employers. No one finds V&E's treatment of their associates acceptable, nor do they buy these were legitimate firings for one second. V&E is doing a serious disservice to associates who are nothing more than victims of a bad economy.
A complete and utter lie. V&E is not doing stealth layoffs. Simply not happening. These comments are either uninformed or dishonest.
Tomo – "A complete and utter lie."? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Tomo – "A complete and utter lie."? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.