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.