V10 Layoffs Forum

[dabigchina]

My gut says Weil. Totally speculation/anecdotal, but I feel like in the last few years they went from S&C/DP peer to a poor man's K&E/Latham and have been losing partners (including, sadly, Harvey Miller). Plus they already laid some people off a couple years ago.

Agree that OP should definitely not out the firm, as curious as I am.

Edit: Apparently Weil isn't even a V10 any more. I guess my anecdotal observation has played out a bit already.

You are trying to "out" the firm with no evidence and ignoring the multiple people wh have said that all firms will do this so be prepared that it can happen.

How does making shit up based on your "gut" add anything?

Are you so desperate to hang onto your delusions about biglaw and some idea that V10 is a magic number?

ALL Firms will slash and burn when they need to. HOWEVER not every firm positions themselves and LEVERAGES themselves to ass/part ratios that make the slash and burn more necessary. i.e. compare Latham to Simpson/Cleary. SImpson and CLeary with almost twice as many partners in the p:a ratio so they have the work providers to work leeches in case things dry up. I don't know this for sure, but I'd wager lots of money that Cleary and Simpson are stealthing way fewer people right now and laid off way less people/respected incoming associates budgeted in 2008 than Latham

Latham actually has less leverage than Simpson and Cleary

1. Covington & Burling (V13) – 2.09
2. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz (V1) – 2.11
3. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (V11) – 3.08
4. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (V15) – 3.32
5. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (V3) – 3.47
6. Kirkland & Ellis (V7) – 3.61
7. Sullivan & Cromwell (V4) – 3.71
8. Latham & Watkins (V10) – 3.80
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (V6) – 4.14
10. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (V2) – 4.24
11. Davis Polk & Wardwell (V5) – 4.86
12. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (V8) – 5.36
13. Boies, Schiller & Flexner (V12) – 5.38
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (V9) – 5.48
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (V14) – 5.80

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05/ny-to-19 ... -leverage/

[rpupkin]

My gut says Weil. Totally speculation/anecdotal, but I feel like in the last few years they went from S&C/DP peer to a poor man's K&E/Latham and have been losing partners (including, sadly, Harvey Miller). Plus they already laid some people off a couple years ago.

Agree that OP should definitely not out the firm, as curious as I am.

Edit: Apparently Weil isn't even a V10 any more. I guess my anecdotal observation has played out a bit already.

You are trying to "out" the firm with no evidence and ignoring the multiple people wh have said that all firms will do this so be prepared that it can happen.

How does making shit up based on your "gut" add anything?

Are you so desperate to hang onto your delusions about biglaw and some idea that V10 is a magic number?

ALL Firms will slash and burn when they need to. HOWEVER not every firm positions themselves and LEVERAGES themselves to ass/part ratios that make the slash and burn more necessary. i.e. compare Latham to Simpson/Cleary. SImpson and CLeary with almost twice as many partners in the p:a ratio so they have the work providers to work leeches in case things dry up. I don't know this for sure, but I'd wager lots of money that Cleary and Simpson are stealthing way fewer people right now and laid off way less people/respected incoming associates budgeted in 2008 than Latham

Latham actually has less leverage than Simpson and Cleary

1. Covington & Burling (V13) – 2.09
2. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz (V1) – 2.11
3. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (V11) – 3.08
4. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (V15) – 3.32
5. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (V3) – 3.47
6. Kirkland & Ellis (V7) – 3.61
7. Sullivan & Cromwell (V4) – 3.71
8. Latham & Watkins (V10) – 3.80
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (V6) – 4.14
10. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (V2) – 4.24
11. Davis Polk & Wardwell (V5) – 4.86
12. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (V8) – 5.36
13. Boies, Schiller & Flexner (V12) – 5.38
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (V9) – 5.48
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (V14) – 5.80

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05/ny-to-19 ... -leverage/

Wow. What happened to Boies?

[cheaptilts]

My gut says Weil. Totally speculation/anecdotal, but I feel like in the last few years they went from S&C/DP peer to a poor man's K&E/Latham and have been losing partners (including, sadly, Harvey Miller). Plus they already laid some people off a couple years ago.

Agree that OP should definitely not out the firm, as curious as I am.

Edit: Apparently Weil isn't even a V10 any more. I guess my anecdotal observation has played out a bit already.

You are trying to "out" the firm with no evidence and ignoring the multiple people wh have said that all firms will do this so be prepared that it can happen.

How does making shit up based on your "gut" add anything?

Are you so desperate to hang onto your delusions about biglaw and some idea that V10 is a magic number?

ALL Firms will slash and burn when they need to. HOWEVER not every firm positions themselves and LEVERAGES themselves to ass/part ratios that make the slash and burn more necessary. i.e. compare Latham to Simpson/Cleary. SImpson and CLeary with almost twice as many partners in the p:a ratio so they have the work providers to work leeches in case things dry up. I don't know this for sure, but I'd wager lots of money that Cleary and Simpson are stealthing way fewer people right now and laid off way less people/respected incoming associates budgeted in 2008 than Latham

Latham actually has less leverage than Simpson and Cleary

1. Covington & Burling (V13) – 2.09
2. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz (V1) – 2.11
3. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (V11) – 3.08
4. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (V15) – 3.32
5. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (V3) – 3.47
6. Kirkland & Ellis (V7) – 3.61
7. Sullivan & Cromwell (V4) – 3.71
8. Latham & Watkins (V10) – 3.80
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (V6) – 4.14
10. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (V2) – 4.24
11. Davis Polk & Wardwell (V5) – 4.86
12. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (V8) – 5.36
13. Boies, Schiller & Flexner (V12) – 5.38
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (V9) – 5.48
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (V14) – 5.80

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05/ny-to-19 ... -leverage/

Wow. What happened to Boies?

Boies has been pretty leveraged for a couple years now? I think they only have (or had) 38 equity partners when I went through OCI. At least they share some of the wealth with the associates, though. Not a place to go if you want to end up partner I guess (though that's basically everywhere now)

[Johann]

good call; youre right. i was looking at some very old stats and something way less reliable than am law.

[cheaptilts]

Just for comparison: Lewis Brisbois (8.62); K&L Gates (8.4); DLA Piper (8.31); Cadwalader (8.73); Cleary (5.48); Paul, Weiss (5.88); DPW (4.96); Skadden (3.69)

and then you have shops like Wachtell at 2.02 and Williams and Connolly at 1.77

[dabigchina]

Just for comparison: Lewis Brisbois (8.62); K&L Gates (8.4); DLA Piper (8.31); Cadwalader (8.73); Cleary (5.48); Paul, Weiss (5.88); DPW (4.96); Skadden (3.69)

and then you have shops like Wachtell at 2.02 and Williams and Connolly at 1.77

Cadwalader has higher leverage than dla piper? Enjoyable.

[rpupkin]

Wow. What happened to Boies?

Boies has been pretty leveraged for a couple years now?

Evidently. When I did OCI seven years ago (yikes), Boies did not appear to be heading in this direction. That's why I'm surprised.

[RaceJudicata]

Stupid question.. but what are the pros and cons of high vs low leverage? The obvious one is to drive profits for the relatively fewer equity partners, right? But what else? Again, sorry for stupid question.

[heythatslife]

Stupid question.. but what are the pros and cons of high vs low leverage? The obvious one is to drive profits for the relatively fewer equity partners, right? But what else? Again, sorry for stupid question.

Yeah, high leverage is good for partners to rack up that PPP.

Low leverage has some advantages for associates, in that generally speaking, 1) a firm with few associates to begin with can't suddenly lay off that many more during dry spells; 2) associates are likely to get more responsibility early on; 3) there's less up-or-out pressure.

[stoopkid13]

Stupid question.. but what are the pros and cons of high vs low leverage? The obvious one is to drive profits for the relatively fewer equity partners, right? But what else? Again, sorry for stupid question.

Yeah, high leverage is good for partners to rack up that PPP.

Low leverage has some advantages for associates, in that generally speaking, 1) a firm with few associates to begin with can't suddenly lay off that many more during dry spells; 2) associates are likely to get more responsibility early on; 3) there's less up-or-out pressure.

I generally agree with this but I'd caution reading into firm leverage too much. Leverage varies by practice area, so associates at the same firm will have different opportunities/pressures. The reason AmLaw reports leverage isn't so associates can get a read on firm culture. AmLaw reports leverage so readers can make sense of other metrics, like PPP and RPL.

[heythatslife]

Stupid question.. but what are the pros and cons of high vs low leverage? The obvious one is to drive profits for the relatively fewer equity partners, right? But what else? Again, sorry for stupid question.

Yeah, high leverage is good for partners to rack up that PPP.

Low leverage has some advantages for associates, in that generally speaking, 1) a firm with few associates to begin with can't suddenly lay off that many more during dry spells; 2) associates are likely to get more responsibility early on; 3) there's less up-or-out pressure.

I generally agree with this but I'd caution reading into firm leverage too much. Leverage varies by practice area, so associates at the same firm will have different opportunities/pressures. The reason AmLaw reports leverage isn't so associates can get a read on firm culture. AmLaw reports leverage so readers can make sense of other metrics, like PPP and RPL.

Totally. You can only extrapolate so much from leverage ratio. Not to mention that leverage ratio can fluctuate significantly over time, as with Boies. Speaking of which, it may be possible that Boies is moving toward a more traditional full service firm structure these days, away from the lit boutique model? I know they were looking for bodies to fill their fledgling transactional groups from my school and interviewed those candidates separately.

[dabigchina]

Stupid question.. but what are the pros and cons of high vs low leverage? The obvious one is to drive profits for the relatively fewer equity partners, right? But what else? Again, sorry for stupid question.

Yeah, high leverage is good for partners to rack up that PPP.

Low leverage has some advantages for associates, in that generally speaking, 1) a firm with few associates to begin with can't suddenly lay off that many more during dry spells; 2) associates are likely to get more responsibility early on; 3) there's less up-or-out pressure.

I generally agree with this but I'd caution reading into firm leverage too much. Leverage varies by practice area, so associates at the same firm will have different opportunities/pressures. The reason AmLaw reports leverage isn't so associates can get a read on firm culture. AmLaw reports leverage so readers can make sense of other metrics, like PPP and RPL.

Totally. You can only extrapolate so much from leverage ratio. Not to mention that leverage ratio can fluctuate significantly over time, as with Boies. Speaking of which, it may be possible that Boies is moving toward a more traditional full service firm structure these days, away from the lit boutique model? I know they were looking for bodies to fill their fledgling transactional groups from my school and interviewed those candidates separately.

Their corp group all went to Paul Hastings, so I doubt it.

[itbdvorm]

Picking up because it seems like my words were mis-quoted and/or misunderstood.

There was a period of time, post-recession, where every large NY law firm (all of whom, despite whatever you read, found ways to reduce headcount in one way or another - go search for "I got laid off from Davis Polk" or whatever that was for further reading) was accordingly desperate for capable mid-level / senior associates. This is a logical outflow from how the cycle went.

2008/9/10 - reduce hiring dramatically, cut staff, etc.
2011/12/13 - work picks up dramatically again, deals need to be done.

So it's now 2014. The would-be 6th years (and 5th, and 4th) are basically non-existent in NYC - because every firm cut down on them. You need a restructuring guy from Weil? Sure, yours if you want - but a traditional corporate associate? Good luck.

What does that mean? Well, from 2014-16, standards dropped dramatically. You're class of 2007 but only have 3 years of relevant experience? Sure, come on board. You've been here you're whole career but frankly aren't very good and no one wants to work with you? Stick around! We need the help!

But towards the end of that period...things changed. Now we've got the right number of juniors (because hiring from 2013-on was basically appropriate), mostly the right number of mid-levels (through combination of development of juniors we did hire and lateral hiring) and while we (and everyone else like us) could always use more talented senior associates gunning for partner, we're mostly OK at that level too.

So what does that mean? Well, we're back to the way it frankly always has been. Which is:

-Great job security in years 1-3 if you pull your weight, have a good attitude, are willing to work hard, etc.
-Decent job security in years 4-5 - criteria above still apply, but now looking for development of substantive expertise and long-term potential
-Potential job security in years 6+ - depending on level of substantive knowledge, team-play, hard-work, etc.

I have no idea whether any individual person at any individual firm (other than mine, I guess) was fired vs. stealth layoff vs. something else. What I do know is that this past year we told a 4th year to leave, and it wasn't because we were doing stealth layoffs - it was because that person wasn't progressing along with his/her classmates, and it was time for him/her to pursue something else.

[KunAgnis]

Picking up because it seems like my words were mis-quoted and/or misunderstood.

There was a period of time, post-recession, where every large NY law firm (all of whom, despite whatever you read, found ways to reduce headcount in one way or another - go search for "I got laid off from Davis Polk" or whatever that was for further reading) was accordingly desperate for capable mid-level / senior associates. This is a logical outflow from how the cycle went.

2008/9/10 - reduce hiring dramatically, cut staff, etc.
2011/12/13 - work picks up dramatically again, deals need to be done.

So it's now 2014. The would-be 6th years (and 5th, and 4th) are basically non-existent in NYC - because every firm cut down on them. You need a restructuring guy from Weil? Sure, yours if you want - but a traditional corporate associate? Good luck.

What does that mean? Well, from 2014-16, standards dropped dramatically. You're class of 2007 but only have 3 years of relevant experience? Sure, come on board. You've been here you're whole career but frankly aren't very good and no one wants to work with you? Stick around! We need the help!

But towards the end of that period...things changed. Now we've got the right number of juniors (because hiring from 2013-on was basically appropriate), mostly the right number of mid-levels (through combination of development of juniors we did hire and lateral hiring) and while we (and everyone else like us) could always use more talented senior associates gunning for partner, we're mostly OK at that level too.

So what does that mean? Well, we're back to the way it frankly always has been. Which is:

-Great job security in years 1-3 if you pull your weight, have a good attitude, are willing to work hard, etc.
-Decent job security in years 4-5 - criteria above still apply, but now looking for development of substantive expertise and long-term potential
-Potential job security in years 6+ - depending on level of substantive knowledge, team-play, hard-work, etc.

I have no idea whether any individual person at any individual firm (other than mine, I guess) was fired vs. stealth layoff vs. something else. What I do know is that this past year we told a 4th year to leave, and it wasn't because we were doing stealth layoffs - it was because that person wasn't progressing along with his/her classmates, and it was time for him/her to pursue something else.

Just a question: by not progressing, did you mean this 4th year's work product was subpar or did you mean that this person did not develop expertise and long-term potential? Though I guess an attorney would be kicked out long before 4th year if their work product is subpar?

[lawlorbust]

My gut says Weil. Totally speculation/anecdotal, but I feel like in the last few years they went from S&C/DP peer to a poor man's K&E/Latham and have been losing partners (including, sadly, Harvey Miller). Plus they already laid some people off a couple years ago.

Agree that OP should definitely not out the firm, as curious as I am.

Edit: Apparently Weil isn't even a V10 any more. I guess my anecdotal observation has played out a bit already.

You are trying to "out" the firm with no evidence and ignoring the multiple people wh have said that all firms will do this so be prepared that it can happen.

How does making shit up based on your "gut" add anything?

Are you so desperate to hang onto your delusions about biglaw and some idea that V10 is a magic number?

ALL Firms will slash and burn when they need to. HOWEVER not every firm positions themselves and LEVERAGES themselves to ass/part ratios that make the slash and burn more necessary. i.e. compare Latham to Simpson/Cleary. SImpson and CLeary with almost twice as many partners in the p:a ratio so they have the work providers to work leeches in case things dry up. I don't know this for sure, but I'd wager lots of money that Cleary and Simpson are stealthing way fewer people right now and laid off way less people/respected incoming associates budgeted in 2008 than Latham

Latham actually has less leverage than Simpson and Cleary

1. Covington & Burling (V13) – 2.09
2. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz (V2) – 2.11
3. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (V11) – 3.08
4. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (V15) – 3.32
5. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (V3) – 3.47
6. Kirkland & Ellis (V7) – 3.61
7. Sullivan & Cromwell (V4) – 3.71
8. Latham & Watkins (V10) – 3.80
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (V6) – 4.14
10. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (V1) – 4.24
11. Davis Polk & Wardwell (V5) – 4.86
12. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (V8) – 5.36
13. Boies, Schiller & Flexner (V12) – 5.38
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (V9) – 5.48
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (V14) – 5.80

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05/ny-to-19 ... -leverage/

FTFY

[itbdvorm]

Picking up because it seems like my words were mis-quoted and/or misunderstood.

There was a period of time, post-recession, where every large NY law firm (all of whom, despite whatever you read, found ways to reduce headcount in one way or another - go search for "I got laid off from Davis Polk" or whatever that was for further reading) was accordingly desperate for capable mid-level / senior associates. This is a logical outflow from how the cycle went.

2008/9/10 - reduce hiring dramatically, cut staff, etc.
2011/12/13 - work picks up dramatically again, deals need to be done.

So it's now 2014. The would-be 6th years (and 5th, and 4th) are basically non-existent in NYC - because every firm cut down on them. You need a restructuring guy from Weil? Sure, yours if you want - but a traditional corporate associate? Good luck.

What does that mean? Well, from 2014-16, standards dropped dramatically. You're class of 2007 but only have 3 years of relevant experience? Sure, come on board. You've been here you're whole career but frankly aren't very good and no one wants to work with you? Stick around! We need the help!

But towards the end of that period...things changed. Now we've got the right number of juniors (because hiring from 2013-on was basically appropriate), mostly the right number of mid-levels (through combination of development of juniors we did hire and lateral hiring) and while we (and everyone else like us) could always use more talented senior associates gunning for partner, we're mostly OK at that level too.

So what does that mean? Well, we're back to the way it frankly always has been. Which is:

-Great job security in years 1-3 if you pull your weight, have a good attitude, are willing to work hard, etc.
-Decent job security in years 4-5 - criteria above still apply, but now looking for development of substantive expertise and long-term potential
-Potential job security in years 6+ - depending on level of substantive knowledge, team-play, hard-work, etc.

I have no idea whether any individual person at any individual firm (other than mine, I guess) was fired vs. stealth layoff vs. something else. What I do know is that this past year we told a 4th year to leave, and it wasn't because we were doing stealth layoffs - it was because that person wasn't progressing along with his/her classmates, and it was time for him/her to pursue something else.

Just a question: by not progressing, did you mean this 4th year's work product was subpar or did you mean that this person did not develop expertise and long-term potential? Though I guess an attorney would be kicked out long before 4th year if their work product is subpar?

Frankly both - (a) leads to (b).

[KunAgnis]

Picking up because it seems like my words were mis-quoted and/or misunderstood.

There was a period of time, post-recession, where every large NY law firm (all of whom, despite whatever you read, found ways to reduce headcount in one way or another - go search for "I got laid off from Davis Polk" or whatever that was for further reading) was accordingly desperate for capable mid-level / senior associates. This is a logical outflow from how the cycle went.

2008/9/10 - reduce hiring dramatically, cut staff, etc.
2011/12/13 - work picks up dramatically again, deals need to be done.

So it's now 2014. The would-be 6th years (and 5th, and 4th) are basically non-existent in NYC - because every firm cut down on them. You need a restructuring guy from Weil? Sure, yours if you want - but a traditional corporate associate? Good luck.

What does that mean? Well, from 2014-16, standards dropped dramatically. You're class of 2007 but only have 3 years of relevant experience? Sure, come on board. You've been here you're whole career but frankly aren't very good and no one wants to work with you? Stick around! We need the help!

But towards the end of that period...things changed. Now we've got the right number of juniors (because hiring from 2013-on was basically appropriate), mostly the right number of mid-levels (through combination of development of juniors we did hire and lateral hiring) and while we (and everyone else like us) could always use more talented senior associates gunning for partner, we're mostly OK at that level too.

So what does that mean? Well, we're back to the way it frankly always has been. Which is:

-Great job security in years 1-3 if you pull your weight, have a good attitude, are willing to work hard, etc.
-Decent job security in years 4-5 - criteria above still apply, but now looking for development of substantive expertise and long-term potential
-Potential job security in years 6+ - depending on level of substantive knowledge, team-play, hard-work, etc.

I have no idea whether any individual person at any individual firm (other than mine, I guess) was fired vs. stealth layoff vs. something else. What I do know is that this past year we told a 4th year to leave, and it wasn't because we were doing stealth layoffs - it was because that person wasn't progressing along with his/her classmates, and it was time for him/her to pursue something else.

Just a question: by not progressing, did you mean this 4th year's work product was subpar or did you mean that this person did not develop expertise and long-term potential? Though I guess an attorney would be kicked out long before 4th year if their work product is subpar?

Frankly both - (a) leads to (b).

I see. Thank you so much, I'm very grateful for your insight. It's hard to hear valuable advice as easily elsewhere.

[AppraisalWaisal]

There are layoffs -- when its publicly announced

There are stealth layoffs -- when you suddenly get fired for performance without warning when your group/firm happens to be slow as hell.

There are up or out firings -- when you get too old and aren't going to make partner. Usually they give you a long while to set up an exit.

There are performance firings -- when people think you aren't good enough, are weird, don't bill enough, etc. You'll usually get some documented bad feedback first (always lateral if you get a bad review). It used to be standard procedure to give these people 3-6 months to find a new gig. But I've heard of multiple V25 firms giving virtually no notice (pack your shit by the end of the week), limited severance, and only 1-3 months left on the website.

A lot of firings are a mix of stealth and performance. If you only bring in the business for 5 associates and you have 3, you are going to ding the two you think are the worst. There are also performance firings where everyone loved you, then your hours get low cause of stuff outside of your control. And then you are the one on the chopping block cause of low hours.

I think firms are more willing to stealth on a group by group basis. My old firm was hiring like wild but at the same time stealthing in groups that were doing bad. And not just corp vs lit. Like hiring anyone one step above shitlaw for FCPA and firing 4 out of 6 antitrust associates even though you should probably be able to just move those folks over.

The big take away here is that firms, for whatever reason, are refusing to carry dead weight for any reason at all. Long gone are the days when someone they don't like is told to leave within 6 months and then after 6 months you still get more time on the site, severance etc.

Sorry to necro. but lateral after a single bad review? Not disputing this but care to elaborate or explain?

I had 1 bad review when I was a 1st year. Rest of the 10ish reviews were good or great. I ended up lateraling anyways a few years later to go back to home market but just curious about htis.

[Traynor Brah]

... definitely just read that entire thread thinking it was current.

[Anonymous User]

My gut says Weil. Totally speculation/anecdotal, but I feel like in the last few years they went from S&C/DP peer to a poor man's K&E/Latham and have been losing partners (including, sadly, Harvey Miller). Plus they already laid some people off a couple years ago.

Agree that OP should definitely not out the firm, as curious as I am.

Edit: Apparently Weil isn't even a V10 any more. I guess my anecdotal observation has played out a bit already.

You are trying to "out" the firm with no evidence and ignoring the multiple people wh have said that all firms will do this so be prepared that it can happen.

How does making shit up based on your "gut" add anything?

Are you so desperate to hang onto your delusions about biglaw and some idea that V10 is a magic number?

ALL Firms will slash and burn when they need to. HOWEVER not every firm positions themselves and LEVERAGES themselves to ass/part ratios that make the slash and burn more necessary. i.e. compare Latham to Simpson/Cleary. SImpson and CLeary with almost twice as many partners in the p:a ratio so they have the work providers to work leeches in case things dry up. I don't know this for sure, but I'd wager lots of money that Cleary and Simpson are stealthing way fewer people right now and laid off way less people/respected incoming associates budgeted in 2008 than Latham

Latham actually has less leverage than Simpson and Cleary

1. Covington & Burling (V13) – 2.09
2. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz (V1) – 2.11
3. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (V11) – 3.08
4. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (V15) – 3.32
5. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (V3) – 3.47
6. Kirkland & Ellis (V7) – 3.61
7. Sullivan & Cromwell (V4) – 3.71
8. Latham & Watkins (V10) – 3.80
9. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (V6) – 4.14
10. Cravath, Swaine & Moore (V2) – 4.24
11. Davis Polk & Wardwell (V5) – 4.86
12. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (V8) – 5.36
13. Boies, Schiller & Flexner (V12) – 5.38
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (V9) – 5.48
15. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (V14) – 5.80

Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05/ny-to-19 ... -leverage/

Wow. What happened to Boies?

Boies has been pretty leveraged for a couple years now? I think they only have (or had) 38 equity partners when I went through OCI. At least they share some of the wealth with the associates, though. Not a place to go if you want to end up partner I guess (though that's basically everywhere now)

In terms of partner-associate ratio, Boies is actually close to 1:1. This list is counting only equity holders:non-equity, a group Boies keeps incredibly small. However, its quite deceptive. Everyone has to become a service partner at Boies before they can be appointed to the executive committee and take an equity stake. And many stay on as partners without full equity status. So your chances of actually making “partner” at Boies are very good; your chances at equity far less so.

From the associate relations and work quality dtandpoint, Boies functions as a very low leveraged shop, more comparable to Wachtell than a DPW or Cravath. Which is to say, in terms of staffing, you’ll usually have a 1-2 associate : 1 partner team, not a 4-5 associate : 1 partner team.

[glitched]

... definitely just read that entire thread thinking it was current.

LOL wtf same.

[Miznitic]

I wouldn't let AtL know cause that is ridiculous, though am curious as to practice area (or is it firmwide?). There does seem to be an uptick in fired stories on this forum though, which is worrisome and surprising since the economy seems to be doing really well.

Most V firms are doing well. The thing to consider is there are a number of candidates out there, more so than previous years. Bringing in fresh, cheap blood is gravy for an improved economy. If you're a 2nd/3rd year, you better be impressing partners.

[Wild Card]

Timely bump.

In the last month or two, my firm's Lit group has axed 5 associates: three 1.5 years and two midlevels.

That's 8 percent of the practice group.

[AntipodeanPhil]

Layoff's are part of life in every business.

If you want security in your law firm bring in business. Start to Build your BOOK early!

This is excellent advice for all V10 junior associates. While playing golf with Jamie Dimon yesterday I pitched my firm's complex litigation capabilities and he promised to give me a call if something comes up. Will try to bring up debt refinancing at my lunch with Jeff Bezos tomorrow. I don't know what the rest of you guys are doing, but you need to get on this! Just go through the Fortune 500 list and make some calls.

[VulcanVulcanVulcan]

Timely bump.

In the last month or two, my firm's Lit group has axed 5 associates: three 1.5 years and two midlevels.

That's 8 percent of the practice group.

Can you tell us anything more?