After the way the firm hired layoffs last year, I am still left wondering what can be done to bring back the Latham culture that kept so many of us at the firm. Our vault ranking has dropped, and I suspect that the quality of our summer class this year will not be the same.
There is no easy answer to the problem. Sure we have been offered money if we bill hours, and promised that there are no more cuts. But I am still left wondering, will LW ever be the same?
|
Office ChatWhat’s happening at work? |
Latham is not top 10 in terms of RPL or PPP, in addition to not being a top 10 as ranked by Vault. Latham's decline is happening faster than I thought.
Guest | Apr 30, 2010
Guest | Apr 30, 2010
That NY is hiring anyone after laying off more than 100 associates in that office alone last year is pretty ridiculous.
Someone panicked.
Guest | Apr 7, 2010
Someone panicked.
Guest | Apr 7, 2010
Latham Lathams accrued vacation?
Guest | Mar 30, 2010
Guest | Mar 30, 2010
About the switch to unlimited vacation days.
Latham planning for mass departures or something?
Guest | Mar 30, 2010
Latham planning for mass departures or something?
Guest | Mar 30, 2010
Missing a redwell full of important docs. Please find your way back into my life.
Guest | Mar 16, 2010
Guest | Mar 16, 2010
Filling out my march madness bracket.
Guest | Mar 15, 2010
Guest | Mar 15, 2010
Corp group is hiring in NYC. I interviewed three people last week. It is about time.
Guest | Mar 15, 2010
Guest | Mar 15, 2010
Trying to catch a nap. Keep getting interrupted.
Guest | Mar 10, 2010
Guest | Mar 10, 2010
Promotes cooperation. Also, compensation differences among the associates might be arbitrary otherwise. Bonus payments sometimes are.
Guest | Feb 17, 2010
Guest | Feb 17, 2010
necessary.
Guest | Feb 17, 2010
Guest | Feb 17, 2010
For the firm slogan, how about:
"I can't believe I turned down [insert firm name]"
Guest | Feb 15, 2010
"I can't believe I turned down [insert firm name]"
Guest | Feb 15, 2010
Which would be a better Latham slogan
"Latham is well diversified,"
or
"There will be no layoffs."
Guest | Feb 14, 2010
"Latham is well diversified,"
or
"There will be no layoffs."
Guest | Feb 14, 2010
YOUR ALL FIRED!!!!
Guest | Feb 14, 2010
Guest | Feb 14, 2010
Lockstep for base, fine. Bonuses at LW have always been somewhat arbitrary.
WhoDat | Feb 8, 2010
WhoDat | Feb 8, 2010
Suggestion Box
Share anonymous ideas and feedback
12 |
1
Vote!
Guest |
created: Jan 31, 2010
|
13 replies
13 replies
1
Guest |
Feb 2, 2010
One of the ways that we have traditionally been told we are different than other firms is that we are more transparent, in part because partners share more info with associates, associates have some influence in decision-making through the associates committee, etc. If 09 taught us anything, it is that Latham is no more transparent than our competitor firms, at least when it comes to things that matter most to associates.
So one suggestion is to bring the associates back into important decisions somehow. My personal feeling is that this can't happen through the associates committee, because members of that committee are basically hand-picked for their advancement potential. What associate on this committee (likely on partnership track) is going to weigh in against the partners to keep the partners from shooting the firm in the foot? Not a chance! Just like the rest of us, these associates are not interested in doing damage to their career prospects.
All this assumes that the partnership would actually consider vetting such matters with associates. If any associates here at Latham know of instances when the partnership has solicited the advice of the associates committee on how to best deal with layoffs/terminations, I would be interested to know. Would also be interested to know if these associates felt comfortable sharing their true opinions in front of the partnership.
So one suggestion is to bring the associates back into important decisions somehow. My personal feeling is that this can't happen through the associates committee, because members of that committee are basically hand-picked for their advancement potential. What associate on this committee (likely on partnership track) is going to weigh in against the partners to keep the partners from shooting the firm in the foot? Not a chance! Just like the rest of us, these associates are not interested in doing damage to their career prospects.
All this assumes that the partnership would actually consider vetting such matters with associates. If any associates here at Latham know of instances when the partnership has solicited the advice of the associates committee on how to best deal with layoffs/terminations, I would be interested to know. Would also be interested to know if these associates felt comfortable sharing their true opinions in front of the partnership.
2
Anonymous Employee |
Feb 14, 2010
There's been a lot of research on mass layoffs and the conclusion is that they often destroy a company's culture unless handled very delicately. In fact, they often end up costing a company more than they save because of the hit to company loyalty, morale, and reputation.
Can any of us say that Latham handled the layoffs properly? I don't want to run down all the negative events of 2009 or the fact that the layoffs at the junior level were arguably excessive and for the most part arbitrary, but I'll say I think it's obvious that they did not.
Realistically, everyone who was here in 09 has that burned into their minds and I don't think things can ever be the same for us. Of course, this rubs off on the newcomers. Furthermore, the firm's reputation has been damaged in the legal press/community and that's also going to affect the attitudes of the people coming in. In short, it's going to take a really long time for things to improve. As for "going back to normal," do you think we'll ever go back to 05 to 07 levels of kool-aid chugging again? I don't. Latham management's behavior just has not been consistent with that. Why do you think all the top firms, which were dealing with the same faltering economy, chose to bite the bullet and absorb the costs of excess capacity and/or offer year off programs?
Furthermore, management seems clueless regarding how to improve things. Bonuses and promises of no more layoffs are nice (although after 2009 who really believes they won't happen if Latham overextends itself again), but they are really failing to address the major issues. No surprise given that they're the same managers who got us into this. I think we could use a change in management with fresh ideas right about now.
Can any of us say that Latham handled the layoffs properly? I don't want to run down all the negative events of 2009 or the fact that the layoffs at the junior level were arguably excessive and for the most part arbitrary, but I'll say I think it's obvious that they did not.
Realistically, everyone who was here in 09 has that burned into their minds and I don't think things can ever be the same for us. Of course, this rubs off on the newcomers. Furthermore, the firm's reputation has been damaged in the legal press/community and that's also going to affect the attitudes of the people coming in. In short, it's going to take a really long time for things to improve. As for "going back to normal," do you think we'll ever go back to 05 to 07 levels of kool-aid chugging again? I don't. Latham management's behavior just has not been consistent with that. Why do you think all the top firms, which were dealing with the same faltering economy, chose to bite the bullet and absorb the costs of excess capacity and/or offer year off programs?
Furthermore, management seems clueless regarding how to improve things. Bonuses and promises of no more layoffs are nice (although after 2009 who really believes they won't happen if Latham overextends itself again), but they are really failing to address the major issues. No surprise given that they're the same managers who got us into this. I think we could use a change in management with fresh ideas right about now.
3
Anonymous Employee |
Feb 14, 2010
Feb 2 I agree with you about the efficacy of the associates committee. My impression of them is that they're mostly yes men (and women). I don't think the partners really want our input on major decisions. The associates committee seems to be in part a marketing tool and also a way to get us to buy into firm decisions under the guise that we contributed to them.
4
Guest |
Feb 15, 2010
My own impression is that perception doesn't match reality. And only time and a steady stream of admirable behavior will fix it.
Once Latham decided to do the Layoff, they did it commendably. Six months severances was 2-3 times market, they were public (i.e., not stealth firings), and given that virtually all of the laid-off were 2-12 months into their careers, it was obvious the layoffs had zero to do with talent for the vast majority.
But none of that matters. History shows that the first firm to pull back on salary or staffing gets crucified--and of course, we did both. The followers pretty much get off with slap on the wrist, and in the end, collective rancer of industry-wide layoffs is redirected to the first-mover. That first-years bore the brunt simply amplifies the situation. All big-law associates accept that they might be forced in a new direction after 3 years, but only after they've acquired valuable skills.
In the end, Latham made 2 mistakes. First, they panicked and cut too many associates, causing the remainder to work way too hard for the past 8 months. Second, New York management should have been rebuked. They recklessly over-hired by 50% in the two-prior years, becoming the most leveraged office with the least diversified practice. And although half the layoffs were in NYC, all the offices were made to share in the pain, even if they were properly staffed. Lastly, Latham had the bad luck of getting caught in a peak growth cycle (from all it's past successes) at a time of unprecedented retraction in both corporate and Litigation--two practices believed to be counter-cyclical.
There are no magic potions to remove the dark-stain, other than a steady diet of good decisions. Lifting the freeze and making everyone whole for what proved to be a buys year was the right the thing to do, but it's just a step. You can't buy your way out. Year-end associate reviews went well, which is another good thing.
I imagine the NYC office requires the most healing, but the other offices still have good people who really believe in the culture they built. These are really good people, a true rarity in big law. All hand-selected, and unlike most, the firm never made the mistake if taking on asshole lateral partners to shore up weaknesses. Those firms that found comfort in consolidation now have to deal with prolonged culture clash, poor integration, partner & practice group envy, etc.
Latham is still very well positioned, and the associate base is young and characterized by really solid personalities. If they hold together--rather than leave in droves once times stabilize--then Latham will still be a uniquely special place to enjoy working on cutting edge deals/cases. In the end, Latham & maybe Gibson are the only national firms can rival the Wallstreet elite on work quality, but without the baggage of NYC culture.
Once Latham decided to do the Layoff, they did it commendably. Six months severances was 2-3 times market, they were public (i.e., not stealth firings), and given that virtually all of the laid-off were 2-12 months into their careers, it was obvious the layoffs had zero to do with talent for the vast majority.
But none of that matters. History shows that the first firm to pull back on salary or staffing gets crucified--and of course, we did both. The followers pretty much get off with slap on the wrist, and in the end, collective rancer of industry-wide layoffs is redirected to the first-mover. That first-years bore the brunt simply amplifies the situation. All big-law associates accept that they might be forced in a new direction after 3 years, but only after they've acquired valuable skills.
In the end, Latham made 2 mistakes. First, they panicked and cut too many associates, causing the remainder to work way too hard for the past 8 months. Second, New York management should have been rebuked. They recklessly over-hired by 50% in the two-prior years, becoming the most leveraged office with the least diversified practice. And although half the layoffs were in NYC, all the offices were made to share in the pain, even if they were properly staffed. Lastly, Latham had the bad luck of getting caught in a peak growth cycle (from all it's past successes) at a time of unprecedented retraction in both corporate and Litigation--two practices believed to be counter-cyclical.
There are no magic potions to remove the dark-stain, other than a steady diet of good decisions. Lifting the freeze and making everyone whole for what proved to be a buys year was the right the thing to do, but it's just a step. You can't buy your way out. Year-end associate reviews went well, which is another good thing.
I imagine the NYC office requires the most healing, but the other offices still have good people who really believe in the culture they built. These are really good people, a true rarity in big law. All hand-selected, and unlike most, the firm never made the mistake if taking on asshole lateral partners to shore up weaknesses. Those firms that found comfort in consolidation now have to deal with prolonged culture clash, poor integration, partner & practice group envy, etc.
Latham is still very well positioned, and the associate base is young and characterized by really solid personalities. If they hold together--rather than leave in droves once times stabilize--then Latham will still be a uniquely special place to enjoy working on cutting edge deals/cases. In the end, Latham & maybe Gibson are the only national firms can rival the Wallstreet elite on work quality, but without the baggage of NYC culture.
5
Guest |
Feb 15, 2010
I disagree that they were done commendably. People weren't given a notice period where they could say they still worked for the firm while they searched. If you think that doesn't matter because it was an "economic layoff" read the ATL article about no one wanting to hire the Latham 190. Regarding the severance, what I'm hearing from the laid-off people is that a minimum of a few months is all a person needs so they have time to look for a job uninterrupted. Beyond that it doesn't matter if it's 3, 4, 5, or 6 months. In the legal world, the long-term career damage is what matters and Latham didn't do much to mitigate that.
Laying off first years is a cruel thing to do because firms/the government either recruit directly out of law school, or they hire experienced attorneys with at least a year of experience. Throwing ssociates who don't even have 6 months of experience out into a terrible economy is pretty callous.
Management in NY should definitely be pushed out. They overhired much worse than any other large firm, which shows they messed up really badly, and they didn't diversify. I don't know how supposedly intelligent managers could drop the ball like that, but they definitely are not the ones who should be leading the firm as it attempts to recover.
As for the firm's long term chances, I wouldn't drink Dell's koolaid on how we're going to come out stronger than ever. History shows us that that's just not likely to happen. Remember when Shearman was prestigious? The actions that caused their decline happened nearly a decade ago and they're still suffering for it. The firm's recovery is going to take a while.
I don't say this to discourage. I just think people should realistically assess whether they want to commit themselves to improving this place or whether it's best to move on to greener pastures. Dell & Co. will paint the rosiest picture possible no matter what the odds. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't.
Laying off first years is a cruel thing to do because firms/the government either recruit directly out of law school, or they hire experienced attorneys with at least a year of experience. Throwing ssociates who don't even have 6 months of experience out into a terrible economy is pretty callous.
Management in NY should definitely be pushed out. They overhired much worse than any other large firm, which shows they messed up really badly, and they didn't diversify. I don't know how supposedly intelligent managers could drop the ball like that, but they definitely are not the ones who should be leading the firm as it attempts to recover.
As for the firm's long term chances, I wouldn't drink Dell's koolaid on how we're going to come out stronger than ever. History shows us that that's just not likely to happen. Remember when Shearman was prestigious? The actions that caused their decline happened nearly a decade ago and they're still suffering for it. The firm's recovery is going to take a while.
I don't say this to discourage. I just think people should realistically assess whether they want to commit themselves to improving this place or whether it's best to move on to greener pastures. Dell & Co. will paint the rosiest picture possible no matter what the odds. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't.
6
Guest |
Feb 16, 2010
I don't think things will be the same anytime soon. I'm going to echo the other posters' sentiments and say they're going to have to make good decisions for years before things improve substantially.
As for recruiting, we're probably less competitive than we were, especially here in NY where the layoffs were massive. That's to be expected though in a well functioning market, especially for law student recruiting given the large number of first years shown the door. Honestly, if I were choosing again as a law student I probably wouldn't come here. Even among the existing associates in this office a lot of people have left or are looking.
As for recruiting, we're probably less competitive than we were, especially here in NY where the layoffs were massive. That's to be expected though in a well functioning market, especially for law student recruiting given the large number of first years shown the door. Honestly, if I were choosing again as a law student I probably wouldn't come here. Even among the existing associates in this office a lot of people have left or are looking.
7
Guest |
Feb 16, 2010
Some counterarguments to Dell's "we're gonna come out of this stronger than ever, guys! Goooo Latham!" assertions:
Link Here
“Latham has fallen off a cliff,” says the consultant.
One year on Latham stunned the market again, this time reporting a 21 per cent drop in average profit per equity partner to $1.8m (£1.23m) followed by the announcement it was laying off 440 employees across its global network, including 12 per cent of its associates.
“It’s a very, very serious management mistake which has to affect them adversely,” argues one legal market consultant of the layoffs, particularly those affecting first-year associates. “They’re taking the cynical view that culturally it doesn’t matter. But if you are one of the top law students at Oxbridge or Harvard now and you have offers from Latham and Slaughter and May, you’d be nuts to take Latham’s offer.”
Latham has also come in for criticism in some sections of the market for failing to hedge the practice well enough.
“Why didn’t Latham hire a major bankruptcy player over the past few years when times were good?” asks one consultant. “My guess is that it was delusional about how long this market would last. Okay, that delusion was shared by millions, but it wasn’t shared by everybody.”
In particular, Latham - and Dell - have come in for criticism that the firm expanded too rapidly when times were good, without much thought for a potential and inevitable downturn.
As one comment on TheLawyer. com put it, in response to Dell admitting Latham was “in a position of over-capacity”: “In other words, things were going
well so they expanded as rapidly as possible to capitalise on that without considering long term staffing requirements and workloads.”
one of the key criticisms levelled at Latham and its management, namely that it failed abjectly to build a credible bankruptcy and restructuring practice during the boom years in preparation for the inevitable downturn.
Some articles on the cost/benefit of layoffs:
Link Here
However, cuts on the bottom rungs may not be the smartest move, he said. He gives the example of a law firm with $100 million in revenue, with 30 percent of that amount going to associate salaries. Layoffs that trim 5 percent of associate costs are the equivalent of just 1.5 percent of revenue.
"If you think about saving money, culling associates is really not the big game. It's the easy game," he said. Blase added that, under his scenario, a mere 3 percent savings requires a firm to lay off 10 percent of its associates.
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
And I don't buy the "training" rationale for the layoffs, mostly because they didn't even try any of the alternatives (like deferrals and office transfers).
Link Here
“Latham has fallen off a cliff,” says the consultant.
One year on Latham stunned the market again, this time reporting a 21 per cent drop in average profit per equity partner to $1.8m (£1.23m) followed by the announcement it was laying off 440 employees across its global network, including 12 per cent of its associates.
“It’s a very, very serious management mistake which has to affect them adversely,” argues one legal market consultant of the layoffs, particularly those affecting first-year associates. “They’re taking the cynical view that culturally it doesn’t matter. But if you are one of the top law students at Oxbridge or Harvard now and you have offers from Latham and Slaughter and May, you’d be nuts to take Latham’s offer.”
Latham has also come in for criticism in some sections of the market for failing to hedge the practice well enough.
“Why didn’t Latham hire a major bankruptcy player over the past few years when times were good?” asks one consultant. “My guess is that it was delusional about how long this market would last. Okay, that delusion was shared by millions, but it wasn’t shared by everybody.”
In particular, Latham - and Dell - have come in for criticism that the firm expanded too rapidly when times were good, without much thought for a potential and inevitable downturn.
As one comment on TheLawyer. com put it, in response to Dell admitting Latham was “in a position of over-capacity”: “In other words, things were going
well so they expanded as rapidly as possible to capitalise on that without considering long term staffing requirements and workloads.”
one of the key criticisms levelled at Latham and its management, namely that it failed abjectly to build a credible bankruptcy and restructuring practice during the boom years in preparation for the inevitable downturn.
Some articles on the cost/benefit of layoffs:
Link Here
However, cuts on the bottom rungs may not be the smartest move, he said. He gives the example of a law firm with $100 million in revenue, with 30 percent of that amount going to associate salaries. Layoffs that trim 5 percent of associate costs are the equivalent of just 1.5 percent of revenue.
"If you think about saving money, culling associates is really not the big game. It's the easy game," he said. Blase added that, under his scenario, a mere 3 percent savings requires a firm to lay off 10 percent of its associates.
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
And I don't buy the "training" rationale for the layoffs, mostly because they didn't even try any of the alternatives (like deferrals and office transfers).
8
Guest |
Feb 20, 2010
Interesting. So, MAJOR Latham clients file bankruptcy and/or shut their doors in this economic crisis and Latham had no futuristic vision of it happening (because so many firms did - sarcastic tone should be taken just in case many of you dont get it.) If clients cant pay, how is Latham suppose to pay us? Money doesn't grow on trees.
As for 2009, 10% across the board. Didn't matter if the department had 10 or 20 or 50 people, it didn't matter of they were attorneys, secretaries,or whatever department in the entire firm. That isn't fair and just?
I have spoken with people that are not attorneys, that are far below that paid grade and got laid off. Is life easy, no. We all knew that it was coming. We all knew that there was a possibility - from the lowest level employee all the way up - that when the economy went south and CLIENTS started to have moneuy problems, that we would be too. Do not play ignorant to that realization. You are paid by the money coming into the firm. It is economics, people.
As for the firm culture, I don't know. How will the second largest law firm in the world going to struggle without us? Get over yourselves and stop this isdious rant.
As for 2009, 10% across the board. Didn't matter if the department had 10 or 20 or 50 people, it didn't matter of they were attorneys, secretaries,or whatever department in the entire firm. That isn't fair and just?
I have spoken with people that are not attorneys, that are far below that paid grade and got laid off. Is life easy, no. We all knew that it was coming. We all knew that there was a possibility - from the lowest level employee all the way up - that when the economy went south and CLIENTS started to have moneuy problems, that we would be too. Do not play ignorant to that realization. You are paid by the money coming into the firm. It is economics, people.
As for the firm culture, I don't know. How will the second largest law firm in the world going to struggle without us? Get over yourselves and stop this isdious rant.
9
Guest |
Feb 20, 2010
8 let me remind you that Latham was hiring derivatives and real estate partners as late as September 08 when it was obvious to everyone that the sh*t had hit the fan.
They also continued to hire associates, to work in cyclical groups eveb, as deal work was drying up in late 07 and 08.
No one is saying it's their fault that clients had less money. It's the firm's complete failure to prepare for that beforehand and the firm's reaction after the fact that makes them blameworthy.
Every firm has had to deal with the same economy, yet it seems that just about every top firm has dealt with the recession better than Latham. What does that tell you?
It's unrealistic to say this isn't going to have a negative long term impact on them when history suggests otherwise and when we're already seeing that it has.
They also continued to hire associates, to work in cyclical groups eveb, as deal work was drying up in late 07 and 08.
No one is saying it's their fault that clients had less money. It's the firm's complete failure to prepare for that beforehand and the firm's reaction after the fact that makes them blameworthy.
Every firm has had to deal with the same economy, yet it seems that just about every top firm has dealt with the recession better than Latham. What does that tell you?
It's unrealistic to say this isn't going to have a negative long term impact on them when history suggests otherwise and when we're already seeing that it has.
