Comments on: Layoffs in the Vault 25

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:44:22 +0000

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.

By: William

William — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:15:52 +0000

Firms that fired first-year associates for "performance-based" reasons should be kicked in the groin until they tell the truth.

By: lawshucks

lawshucks — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:13:27 +0000

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.

By: whatisgoingon

whatisgoingon — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:03:22 +0000

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.

By: LathamHate

LathamHate — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:42:37 +0000

Latham is a TTT

By: Realist

Realist — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:20:00 +0000

Apologies for the duplicate comment…hadn't seemed to show up

By: Realist

Realist — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:19:18 +0000

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.

By: Realist

Realist — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:17:54 +0000

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.

By: BankruptcyBill.us » Blog Archive » Bankruptcy Billables 8.19.09

BankruptcyBill.us » Blog Archive » Bankruptcy Billables 8.19.09 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:46:05 +0000

[...] Layoffs in the Vault 25 [...]

By: lawshucks

lawshucks — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:14:49 +0000

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.