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.