The long-awaited Vault Prestige rankings have finally come out, and on the whole, things remained largely the same.
You can find analysis on who moved up and who moved down all over the place, including by our friends at ATL, where the comments are really heating up.
We’re sticking with our bread and butter.
After the jump, we break down the Top 25 based on the number of people they’ve laid off.
Not surprisingly, there were fewer firms in the top 25 with layoffs than we’ll see as we analyze the rest of the top 100.
Here’s the raw chart, sorted by Vault prestige ranking:
First thing to be aware of is that the layoffs at Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Kirkland & Ellis, WilmerHale, and Quinn Emanuel are all “stealth” layoffs. Weil Gotshal’s layoff of lawyers is pursuant to the firm’s closing its Austin office.
You have to go all the way down to Sidley at #15 to find a firm that has announced layoffs of lawyers. Sidley and O’Melveny have both had turns in the Top 10 List but have fallen out (the cutoff is still Morgan Lewis at 266).
Two firms make both our Top 10 List and the Vault Top 25. Latham & Watkins has laid off 440 people in total, ranking #4 overall. and White & Case has laid off 579 total, sitting on top of the heap.
Think layoffs don’t hurt reputations? Latham dropped from #7 to #17 (the only firm to drop out of the Vault Top 10 from last year); White & Case went from #17 to #20.
Those two firms combined for almost half (47.5%) of all the layoffs by the V25 (1,019 out of 2,145).
Thirteen of the V25 firms laid off staff, who accounted for 60% of all the people laid off, which is almost exactly in line with the overall ratio 8,042:5,190.
All told, the V25 accounts for:
2,145 of 13,232 total layoffs (16.21%)
845 of 5,190 attorney layoffs (16.28%)
1,300 of 8,042 staff layoffs (16.17%)
Over the rest of the week we’ll be breaking down the remainder of the V100.
Related posts:
Nice to have someone put this together. How are we defining "steath" layoffs? Firings where the firm does not make a public announcement that the attorneys/staff were fired for economic reasons?
Law firms have a lot more tricks up their sleeves when laying off people – I’ve seen it at all the firms I’ve been at. Bad reviews are the best way to eliminate people or get people to leave without firing them. I know as I was a casualty of that line of BS even though not one person I worked with gave me a bad review and all were angered by the decision to let me go and the stated cause. I should add that I’m not an attorney.
While I'm sure that the people laid off from Latham and White & Case are deriving some satisfaction from the drop in rankings, I'm concerned that after other V100 firms see that, they will be even more encouraged to get rid of people through trumped-up bad performance reviews, rather than admitting economic layoffs. As bad as being laid off is, I'd rather be able to claim in an interview that the firm admitted that it was for economic reasons than do what I'm having to do – describe the number of people that were cut and the attrition that the firm stated it needed, without using the word "layoff" (because I'm at a firm where they insisted they weren't laying off anyone) and hope the interviewers understand.
Realist – I'm not sure how the site is defining stealth layoffs, but I personally would include any firm where associates suddenly received very harsh performance reviews, were terminated because of one small comment in a performance review (that would have been ignored in better times), or were told privately that the real reason was the economy, but the firm won't admit it. I'm sure that in every group from every firm, there were a couple whose performance, either in terms of work quality, personality problems, motivation, etc., was bad enough that they deserved to be let go and would have been told to go in a good economy. I'm even more sure that most of the other attorneys cut generally met or exceeded the firms' expectations and would have been allowed to stay in a better economy or if they were in a practice group that was busier (if there are any besides bankruptcy left). In my mind, that's a layoff, even if the associates in question weren't the firm "superstars," of which there are very few.
That's pretty much right. The other piece, of course, is that we get reliable sourcing on the layoffs.
We assumed everyone had read
http://lawshucks.com/2009/02/more-hypocrisy-in-st...
and
http://lawshucks.com/2009/03/our-stance-on-volunt...
but since we changed the "Popular Posts" from all time (where those two spent a lot of time) they've dropped off the list.
I would agree with that definition Anna. And under it I,’m not sure most of the firms listed fit the bill. I think S&C is the only firm that laid off a high number of associates and insisted it was for performance reasons and had nothing to do with the economy. The other firms have simply declined to make any public comments. I actually know a few people among the terminated staff at Kirkland. The firm did not tell them they were being fired for performance reasons. I don’t think Quinn or Cravath fit the “stealth layoff” category either.
I would agree with that definition Anna. And under it I’m not sure most of the firms listed fit the bill. I think S&C is the only firm that laid off a high number of associates and insisted it was for performance reasons and had nothing to do with the economy. The other firms have simply declined to make any public comments. I actually know a few people among the terminated staff at Kirkland. The firm did not tell them they were being fired for performance reasons. I don’t think Quinn or Cravath fit the “stealth layoff” category either.
Apologies for the duplicate comment…hadn't seemed to show up
Latham is a TTT
Cleary has laid off a fairly large number of mid-level and senior associates in New York and Europe (not sure about DC). Just because it hasn't leaked to the media does not mean the firm has not had any layoffs. The firm started giving "mid-year" reviews this year and is now laying off people for "performance reasons" every six months or so.
Agreed, but it means as far as the media are concerned, there’s nothing to report. Unless there’s some basis I can rely on, I can’t really include them, can I? All I can do is keep digging, begging for tips, and railing against the hypocrisy of stealth layoffs.
Which is all to say, we need your help! If you’re at one of these firms, there are a million ways to reach us (contact form, email tips(at)lawshucks(dot)com, twitter @lawshucks, and on and on). Let us know what you’re seeing and we’ll call around to see what we can confirm.
Firms that fired first-year associates for "performance-based" reasons should be kicked in the groin until they tell the truth.
Correction: Weil is closing the Austin office but they have not laid anyone off from that office. They are giving the attorneys and staff at the Austin office the opportunity to go to any other office of their choosing. This is not to say that Weil is not doing "stealth" layoffs….just that your statistics are incorrect because they are not laying off the attorneys in the Austin office.