The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Wow, Latham... seriously?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:06 AM
salary freeze. ftw. |
 |
Date: May 9th, 2009 3:17 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:37 AM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 1:57 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:10 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:23 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:24 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:27 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:28 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:41 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:42 AM
you all need to shed this idea that associate salaries are composed of prize money that is set aside to reward you for your hard efforts in law school.
associate salaries are a function of profits. oh, and despite your beliefs to the contrary, none of you are entitled to shit |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:46 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:51 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 3:44 AM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 1:52 AM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:31 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:47 AM
EDIT: COOL, ALRIGHT, COOL, COOL, ALRIGHT (KICK IT) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:07 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 9:57 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:50 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:51 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:45 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:46 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:46 AM
(Why ATL calls it "reed smith" in the title is beyond me.) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:47 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:47 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:50 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:51 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:53 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:00 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:53 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:57 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:02 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:05 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:05 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:08 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:10 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 2:18 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:51 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2009 3:11 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:06 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 1:00 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:08 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:10 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:10 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:10 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:47 PM
second, what's so wrong w/ mass layoffs? if you're surfing the net billing 1000 hours a year, you deserve to get shitcanned.
at the very least, institute a salary freeze for those billing nothing instead of punishing people who actually do their jobs. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:52 PM The finance and corporate associates billing 2200 last year are the ones who covered the litigation associates then billing 1800, and the success premiums on their fees (which often start off higher than lit fees) is what generated the salary raises and special bonuses last year. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 1:12 PM
also, juniors might not have complete control over hours, but there is definitely some. i'm not at latham, but there is great disparity in the hours that people in my class are billing as juniors, and it's partly based on availability of work, partly based on initiative. a lot of them were happy coasting billing 10 hours a week. others were proactive in getting work. at a place like latham where you are unassigned, you can use some doc review during down times to increase your hours.
in a shitty economy, i dont think anybody should feel entitled to coast and still have a job. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:27 PM Doc reviews go to the most junior people around because it's difficult to justify charging anything other than first year fees. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 7:33 AM
That said, I do wonder if forcing a bunch of unproductive associates into part time would be better than an official salary freeze. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 1:52 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:09 PM
they must hate their associates. they just fucked them in the ass harder than anyone could have imagined. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:11 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:12 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:13 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:24 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:39 AM |
|
Date: December 18th, 2008 5:16 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:09 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:33 PM
not a big deal |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:54 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:14 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 12:57 PM
so their associates will be making the same 6 figure salary in 2009 that they made in 2008. cry me a fucking river |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:40 AM |
|
Date: September 19th, 2009 11:34 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 1:05 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 1:17 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 1:31 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:01 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:12 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:28 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:31 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:46 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:49 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 3:20 PM Similarly, the first and second years at Skadden are likely their slowest classes. So many of them may well come up short of 1600. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 3:36 PM
Do you see how pathetic that is, given that it shouldn't even be a question that a 4th year should make more.
Stop drinking the kool aid and give credit where credit's due. latham decided to fuck its associates (as have all the half-skaddens future salary freeze firms) and skadden is the only one looking good right now. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 3:40 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 6:09 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:36 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 2:37 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 6:42 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:16 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:17 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:18 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:21 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:22 PM And like the poster above, I always thought they had a fairly diverse practice. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:27 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:29 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:29 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:31 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 8:37 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:25 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:41 AM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 9:45 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 9:52 PM |
|
Date: December 16th, 2008 11:05 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 1:31 AM
I guess nobody thought they might just cut salaries instead. Well, I suppose it makes sense. They'll save money and they'll keep most of their associates (nowhere to go), and if the economy/lateral market heats up, they can just brings salaries back up again. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 7:36 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:49 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:51 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:53 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:58 PM
Personally, I would much rather accept an offer from Latham than from say, OMM given the info that has recently come out. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 8:36 AM
If the market does not follow, Latham will suffer more from this than from cutting the dead weight. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 12:03 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 12:07 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:47 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:49 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:50 PM
2) yes, i know what i'm billing in 2009 -- over 2000. it pisses me off to no end that i might get ZERO bonus next year (given the cravath memo) despite having a busy year.
3) lockstep sucks. if you freeze salaries, freeze it for those billing under 1500. if you're gonna cut bonuses, eliminate it for those billing under 1500 (or some other threshold). why punish your best associates. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:54 PM
2) Unless you're in bankruptcy or restructuring you can't possibly be sure of that.
3) I totally agree with this - establishing an hours threshold for bonuses would have been my first cost cutting measure. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:59 PM
as a selfish and greedy associate, of course i'd like to be compensated for my efforts accordingly. too bad the market sucks and i have no incentive to work. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:11 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:15 PM
like i said, i'm greedy. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:51 PM
High billers always subsidize -- especially when salaries/bonuses are lockstep, but even when they are not, the bonus is never proportional to the number of hours. |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:42 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 8:55 AM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:41 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 2:51 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 3:06 PM
But, my firm has yet to announce bonuses. Hopefully OMM's move will prevent a follow-the-herd mentality. Funny cuz OMM typically is the one firm that always sticks with the pack or sticks with the pack minus 10% or so. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:50 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:51 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 4:53 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:00 PM As for not freezing, or even leaving the possibility open, maybe things are just that bad at Latham. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:04 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:07 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:10 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:15 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 5:17 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:27 PM
I've already started sending in resumes to government agencies and smaller law firms, but my prospects are horrid ITE with little to no experience.
I was hoping for at least a year so I could make a sizeable dent in my loans, but I think that is wishful thinking at this point |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:31 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:33 PM
And like I said, I've already started sending out resumes |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:36 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:37 PM
As far as I know, not a single stub I know in my office or any other office has gotten either done. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:40 PM
It is very scary. No one wants to talk about it, but you can tell people are fucking scared. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:43 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:54 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:48 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:56 PM
|
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:57 PM
tITCR |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:05 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:08 PM
I've contacted some people at other firms, but obviously they are looking to get rid of people, not add them.
I've been thinking of maybe getting an LLM, with the hope that by 2010 things will be better, but this seems risky to do and it'd add to my debt.
I think I'm just royally fucked. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:10 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:12 PM
You might be in a better situation than me. I don't have a tech background or a clerkship or anything like that.
I think some of the stubs here that have COA clerkships and things like that will land on their feet.
If you are one of those, you are probably in an much better situation than me |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:16 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:17 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:49 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:41 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:43 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 2:43 PM
Let's see if anybody gets the axe during the review period and how bonuses turn out (for the ten people that will get them). |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 3:10 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:36 PM
|
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:38 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:51 AM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:50 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:38 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:39 PM |
|
Date: May 30th, 2010 2:10 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:41 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 9:42 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:52 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:07 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:09 PM
Worst case, LW becomes the Brobeck of this cycle |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:10 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:17 PM
Firms HAVE to cut cost and maintain PPP levels. If they don't, rainmaking partners will leave for other firms.
It's scary how fast firms can go down if some key rainmaking partners split.
That's why LW (or any firm struggling for that matter) MUST try to keep PPP as high as possible, the survival of the firm litterally depends on it.
Unfortunately for us, that means payfreezes, layoffs, etc |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:20 PM
BTW I suspect some of the partners, many of whom are slow too, are going to get canned, especially the service/support partners-----> FUCKED |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:22 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:24 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:26 PM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:27 PM
What?!?!
The???!?!?
FUCK?!?!?!?! |
|
Date: December 18th, 2008 10:54 AM
once the fat is trimmed (not just low billers, but low billers who make no effort t oget work), it'll get better. if you're a stub, you doubt you have anything to worry about. |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:52 AM |
|
Date: December 17th, 2008 10:32 PM |
|
Date: December 18th, 2008 4:25 PM |
|
Date: December 18th, 2008 4:52 PM
Maybe I have too many senior/midlevel friends but I agree that stubs are safe and the seniors/midlevels will be the first to go. That is just how attrition is supposed to work. Of course the seniors/midlevels are the ones who actually have some skills and knowledge, but it's the stubs who feel the entitlement and will actually get it.
This goes for every big NY firm btw (except for the fat bar stipend) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2008 5:23 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:55 AM |
|
Date: December 18th, 2008 5:17 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 4:40 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 4:58 PM
I have been telling you all along dooder, we are in deep shit. |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:04 PM
|
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:05 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:07 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:10 PM
HTH dood |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:14 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:38 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 7:02 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 7:51 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:30 PM
Again this is not Latham specific, and I wouldn't really rather be at Cravath with their 160 summers scheduled to start next fall. |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 9:28 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 10:38 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 10:54 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:00 PM
HTH |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:57 AM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:07 PM
I don't understand a substantial portion of this thread. |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:08 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 5:09 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 7:09 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 7:52 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 7:59 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 8:44 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 8:24 PM
Like lots of folks, they're screwed in some practices and offices. London was a huge capital markets practice--now associates are billing like 400 hours a year. They've been doing stealth layoffs for a year, and have offered a buyout to others (6 months severance). There's been talk of Latham being diverse, but that isn't true. Their not alone in that, of course, but still. It's too bad, because the firm has some great folks. But they got into the capital markets like Brobeck got into the dot-com work. |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 8:44 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 10:04 PM
2300 lawyers isn't out of line with the size of most of the top larger firms and Latham grew at a much more even pace than the Baker McKenzies/DLA Pipers or even Sidley. The closest comparison to Latham is Skadden in terms of its size, pace of growth, geographic diversity and corporate-heaviness, yet Skadden is acting strong while Latham acts weak. Why? It sure as hell isn't because Skadden's bankruptcy practice is supporting 2000 other lawyers. My guess is that Skadden built client relationships and more capital markets expertise during the boom so that they can count on continued business and growth from their last 4 years of work. But Latham's litigators also appear to be slow, and that's the piece of this I can't figure out. Why would their litigators be so much worse off than their peers? If this is all about Latham being weak because of its size and aggressive growth why hasn't Jones Day imploded yet? What's keeping DLA Piper afloat? Their litigation groups are all really that much better than Latham's? Seems tough to swallow. It was all because of those 6 $250K bonuses they paid to a handful of SCOTUS clerks? I doubt it. Maybe the rest of the megafirms will all layoff hundreds in January and it will make more sense.
The answer that "Latham just delights in screwing its associates" doesn't make sense either. Latham hires a slew of legal industry consultants for every decision of this magnitude, and they dutifully gin up the law.com article to go out with the press release, etc. as we saw last week. Surely they pointed out stuff like "this could kill you in recruiting" and/or "you may never sniff the vault top 10 again." And btw, they hire all those consultants, and always wait until the end of bonus season to make their announcement specifically because they are trying to avoid another situation like the layoffs in the early 90s. Ask any Latham person and they'll tell you how much that episode is still discussed and criticized at the firm. The managing partner referred to it specifically when Latham made it's "no layoffs" pledge last March. So now I'm supposed to believe that partners at Latham changed their minds, or they don't like money, or are OK with being thought of as a lesser firm? It's just tough to figure out. |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 10:14 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 10:48 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 10:54 PM
One distinction between Skadden and Latham. 866 of Skadden's attorneys are in NY, billing at NY rates. Latham only has 385 in NY. Skadden also does not have lower billing offices like San Diego and Orange County.
With litigation, Latham just hasn't put the resources in lately. People stayed away from that department if they wanted a long-term future. So now who is left? Some folks, but it's not the strongest area for the firm.
We really don't know the extent of Latham's problems. Perhaps they are just being very conservative and thought more firms would follow. But they have a couple offices that are absolutely dead. And totally dead is a lot diferent from folks only billing 1600 a year. |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 10:57 PM
Private equity M&A is way down in this economy but it is not the main problem. PE buyouts didn't cause the credit crunch, they are just being hit very hard by it. PE can and will come back if (and for the country's sake, let's hope that's a *when*) the credit markets return to functionality. Otherwise Simpson Thacher would basically be dissolved by now.
Latham has/had a *huge* securities practice and this is actually a current problem more than a potential solution. Check league tables and you will see Latham is always on there in some capacity or another. But the capital markets are dead right now -- when's the last time you heard of an IPO -- and this is bad for Latham as well as Cravath, S&C, etc.
Latham litigators are slow? Check pace reports and report back.
|
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 11:01 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 11:02 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:57 AM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 9:45 PM |
|
Date: December 22nd, 2008 11:55 PM
However, I can say that Litigation is slowing down at a lot of BIGLAW firms. Basically, it's not just a Latham thing. I have friends at LW in LIT who are busy as shit, and some who are getting no work. I have friends at other BIGLAW firms who are the same.
Basically, companies are so unwilling to spend money in this economy that they are avoiding getting into new big litigation matters. Because of the long lasting nature of litigation, some firms have matters that have been ongoing for a while and keeping them busy. But I have heard of clients who are settling ASAP to avoid legal fees.
|
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 9:36 PM |
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 9:40 PM |
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 9:47 PM |
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 9:48 PM |
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 9:41 PM |
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 10:19 PM |
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 10:29 PM
latham is not a market leader the way cravath is. |
|
Date: January 2nd, 2009 9:52 PM |
|
Date: January 9th, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 1:05 AM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 12:43 AM |
|
Date: September 4th, 2009 1:04 AM |
|
Date: January 9th, 2009 10:25 PM |
|
Date: September 6th, 2009 1:54 PM |