I think I'm being pushed out of my firm Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just for context, I have never received a poor performance review, never received "the talk," and never had anyone express disappointment about any of my work practices (e.g. working from home, when I come in/leave, responsiveness, etc.). Overall, I'd say I'm pretty well-liked but not anyone's first pick when it comes to assigning work. Also, in case it's relevant, I'm a mid-level, started at my firm, upper T10 grad, URM in a firm that has VERY FEW people of color.

Anyway, over the last 3-4 months I've been INCREDIBLY slow. I will be put on an assignment that's kind of a one-off and doesn't offer much in terms of consistent hours. In order to get ahead of it, I asked a work advisor I trust about my intermittent slow periods and whether I should be concerned that it is a symptom of something bigger--such as disappointment in the quality of my work. She assured me that it is not. Anyway, I'm still slow. But, again, she assured me that she hasn't heard a single negative thing about me and I haven't received any indication that people are unhappy with me. I do not get the impression that our office is generally slow as there are plenty of juniors who feel like they are dying because they are so overworked.

What gives? I've been looking to lateral even before this but I just want to get your read on it. Am I being paranoid? Would you be looking to move even if you weren't already considering moving?

[Anonymous User]

I’m curious as I’m in a very similar situation. I wonder how long should I wait before start applying for other jobs. I have seen people leave my firm because their work dried up (mainly because the people who were giving them work left).

[6333co]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

[Anonymous User]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

I'm trying to avoid being daft...that's why I asked the question. ((sigh)) It sounds like I'm doing the right thing by looking. It seems like a shitty way to get someone to leave but I guess it's effective.

[QContinuum]

Yes, if you're not on pace to meet your minimum, your hours are trending down, you haven't been able to reverse the decline despite scrambling to source more work, yet the firm as a whole seems really busy... you're most likely being frozen out. You should start looking asap.

[hoos89]

I'd be pretty concerned if I wasn't getting work but juniors were complaining about how busy they were. That can't be a good sign. I'm wondering if your practice serves more cost conscious clients and so partners aim to have more junior associates on transactions so you're effectively being costed out? How busy are your peers?

[Anonymous User]

I'd be pretty concerned if I wasn't getting work but juniors were complaining about how busy they were. That can't be a good sign. I'm wondering if your practice serves more cost conscious clients and so partners aim to have more junior associates on transactions so you're effectively being costed out? How busy are your peers?

Well, there’s not a ton of us left but my peers don’t appear to be drowning in work. That said, most are either on an active investigation or one of the two really big cases going on right now, so I don’t think any of them are super slow either. I’ve asked about being put on one of the big cases but one is fully staffed and the other is a client that is sensitive to large numbers of people billing to their matters, so basically neither are adding people.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, if you're not on pace to meet your minimum, your hours are trending down, you haven't been able to reverse the decline despite scrambling to source more work, yet the firm as a whole seems really busy... you're most likely being frozen out. You should start looking asap.

My thought too. I’ve been looking and expect to have one offer by the end of this week and possibly a second. I just feel so hurt at the possibility that this could be exactly what the firm is trying to get me to do.

[nealric]

Yes, if you're not on pace to meet your minimum, your hours are trending down, you haven't been able to reverse the decline despite scrambling to source more work, yet the firm as a whole seems really busy... you're most likely being frozen out. You should start looking asap.

My thought too. I’ve been looking and expect to have one offer by the end of this week and possibly a second. I just feel so hurt at the possibility that this could be exactly what the firm is trying to get me to do.

Keep in mind that there isn't always a master plan going on behind the scenes. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a certain associate isn't getting assigned enough work. It doesn't necessarily mean that associate is disliked, it may be they haven't built the right relationships or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even so, this can result in an associate being pushed out as most firms tend to single-out low billers when it comes time to make cuts.

If the firm institutionally wanted you gone, you would have probably gotten the talk. More likely, you've fallen through the cracks. It's a recoverable situation if you get staffed on a big matter, but there's no denying it can be perilous. Not a bad idea to start looking at other opportunities now, but be selective. Don't lateral out of fear- do it because you've found a good opportunity.

[QContinuum]

Keep in mind that there isn't always a master plan going on behind the scenes. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a certain associate isn't getting assigned enough work. It doesn't necessarily mean that associate is disliked, it may be they haven't built the right relationships or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even so, this can result in an associate being pushed out as most firms tend to single-out low billers when it comes time to make cuts.

If the firm institutionally wanted you gone, you would have probably gotten the talk. More likely, you've fallen through the cracks. It's a recoverable situation if you get staffed on a big matter, but there's no denying it can be perilous. Not a bad idea to start looking at other opportunities now, but be selective. Don't lateral out of fear- do it because you've found a good opportunity.

Great advice, and completely seconded. My previous post was not clear enough that getting "frozen out" is usually something that just happens kind of passively, not an order from the managing partner to "stop giving associate X work, we want to passive-aggressively force them to leave".

Certainly OP should continue trying to source more work at the firm. But I'd recommend leaving if a good offer presents itself - IMO, easier to start fresh than to try to climb back up from a bad situation.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, if you're not on pace to meet your minimum, your hours are trending down, you haven't been able to reverse the decline despite scrambling to source more work, yet the firm as a whole seems really busy... you're most likely being frozen out. You should start looking asap.

My thought too. I’ve been looking and expect to have one offer by the end of this week and possibly a second. I just feel so hurt at the possibility that this could be exactly what the firm is trying to get me to do.

Keep in mind that there isn't always a master plan going on behind the scenes. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a certain associate isn't getting assigned enough work. It doesn't necessarily mean that associate is disliked, it may be they haven't built the right relationships or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even so, this can result in an associate being pushed out as most firms tend to single-out low billers when it comes time to make cuts.

If the firm institutionally wanted you gone, you would have probably gotten the talk. More likely, you've fallen through the cracks. It's a recoverable situation if you get staffed on a big matter, but there's no denying it can be perilous. Not a bad idea to start looking at other opportunities now, but be selective. Don't lateral out of fear- do it because you've found a good opportunity.

This is good advice. Thank you!

[Anonymous User]

Keep in mind that there isn't always a master plan going on behind the scenes. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a certain associate isn't getting assigned enough work. It doesn't necessarily mean that associate is disliked, it may be they haven't built the right relationships or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even so, this can result in an associate being pushed out as most firms tend to single-out low billers when it comes time to make cuts.

If the firm institutionally wanted you gone, you would have probably gotten the talk. More likely, you've fallen through the cracks. It's a recoverable situation if you get staffed on a big matter, but there's no denying it can be perilous. Not a bad idea to start looking at other opportunities now, but be selective. Don't lateral out of fear- do it because you've found a good opportunity.

Great advice, and completely seconded. My previous post was not clear enough that getting "frozen out" is usually something that just happens kind of passively, not an order from the managing partner to "stop giving associate X work, we want to passive-aggressively force them to leave".

Certainly OP should continue trying to source more work at the firm. But I'd recommend leaving if a good offer presents itself - IMO, easier to start fresh than to try to climb back up from a bad situation.

Totally agree that it will likely be easier to start fresh. I’ve been looking for about a year because I’ve wanted a change; I think now I’m just going to be more serious about weighing my options. I’ll also look for work while I’m here—i would hate to leave on a bad note. Hopefully, I’ll be moving on to better things in a month or so.

[Aptitude]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

And The Post of The Year Award Goes to...

[Person1111]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

This post is unnecessarily alarmist and exaggerated. One of the things TLS consistently gets wrong is the extent to which attrition at law firms is voluntary. The majority of departures (especially before year 5-6 or so) are because people don't want to put up with the hours, stress, etc. involved in working at a large firm - not because they get pushed out. Law firms generally don't want to push out good midlevels, who--while more expensive--are capable of doing much more sophisticated work (and working much more efficiently) than junior associates can. And nealric is 100% right that this is most likely not the result of a coordinated effort to freeze the OP out - it's just that law firms are often not good at ensuring work is evenly distributed, and OP may just be at a slower point given the specific collection of matters that he/she is on.

OP - just how slow are you? If you're well-liked and get good reviews, one year of mediocre hours (like 1700-1800ish) usually won't sink you. If you are on pace for 1200 hours or something, you should call a recruiter.

[6333co]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

This post is unnecessarily alarmist and exaggerated. One of the things TLS consistently gets wrong is the extent to which attrition at law firms is voluntary. The majority of departures (especially before year 5-6 or so) are because people don't want to put up with the hours, stress, etc. involved in working at a large firm - not because they get pushed out. Law firms generally don't want to push out good midlevels, who--while more expensive--are capable of doing much more sophisticated work (and working much more efficiently) than junior associates can.

This is what firms say (because they don't want to be accused of not having enough work) and what pushed out associates say (because they want to be know as someone who wasn't given work). It's also total bullshit.

The increased efficiency of midlevels is not enough to save them.
1. Sometimes, they're not more efficient because first-years are more motivated. Most of this work is grunt work that anyone can do (writing, research, proofing).
2. Even if midlevels are more efficient, that's already factored into their billable hour. If your billable hour is $700 and a first year's is $450, you have to be at least 50% more efficient just to be as valuable as they are.
3. Sometimes midlevels will hog work they should be pushing down, and view first-years as their adversaries. This poisons the culture and hurts clients. This is another reason why less-than-stellar midlevels have to go.

Biglaw does not have the work to grow any bigger. It's stagnating. It also needs fresh blood. I forget which firm, Quinn or Boies, tried to do away with their summer associate program and entry-level hiring and it didn't work. Stagnating revenue and new hires = someone has to go to make room. It's as simple as that. Some leave by choice, but most by force.

[Anonymous User]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

This post is unnecessarily alarmist and exaggerated. One of the things TLS consistently gets wrong is the extent to which attrition at law firms is voluntary. The majority of departures (especially before year 5-6 or so) are because people don't want to put up with the hours, stress, etc. involved in working at a large firm - not because they get pushed out. Law firms generally don't want to push out good midlevels, who--while more expensive--are capable of doing much more sophisticated work (and working much more efficiently) than junior associates can. And nealric is 100% right that this is most likely not the result of a coordinated effort to freeze the OP out - it's just that law firms are often not good at ensuring work is evenly distributed, and OP may just be at a slower point given the specific collection of matters that he/she is on.

OP - just how slow are you? If you're well-liked and get good reviews, one year of mediocre hours (like 1700-1800ish) usually won't sink you. If you are on pace for 1200 hours or something, you should call a recruiter.

Well, our billable target is 1950 so 1800 wouldn’t be crazy and I think that’s what I’m pacing right now. Even though I still plan to leave, it’s nice to hear a less pessimistic/alarmist perspective.

[malibustacy]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

This post is unnecessarily alarmist and exaggerated. One of the things TLS consistently gets wrong is the extent to which attrition at law firms is voluntary. The majority of departures (especially before year 5-6 or so) are because people don't want to put up with the hours, stress, etc. involved in working at a large firm - not because they get pushed out. Law firms generally don't want to push out good midlevels, who--while more expensive--are capable of doing much more sophisticated work (and working much more efficiently) than junior associates can.

This is what firms say (because they don't want to be accused of not having enough work) and what pushed out associates say (because they want to be know as someone who wasn't given work). It's also total bullshit.

The increased efficiency of midlevels is not enough to save them.
1. Sometimes, they're not more efficient because first-years are more motivated. Most of this work is grunt work that anyone can do (writing, research, proofing).
2. Even if midlevels are more efficient, that's already factored into their billable hour. If your billable hour is $700 and a first year's is $450, you have to be at least 50% more efficient just to be as valuable as they are.
3. Sometimes midlevels will hog work they should be pushing down, and view first-years as their adversaries. This poisons the culture and hurts clients. This is another reason why less-than-stellar midlevels have to go.

Biglaw does not have the work to grow any bigger. It's stagnating. It also needs fresh blood. I forget which firm, Quinn or Boies, tried to do away with their summer associate program and entry-level hiring and it didn't work. Stagnating revenue and new hires = someone has to go to make room. It's as simple as that. Some leave by choice, but most by force.

I don't know what firm you're at, or if you actually know how things work, but Big Law is not "stagnating" at the moment. Maybe if another recession hits soon that's another story, but plenty of firms right now are desperate to keep good mid-levels and senior associates, at a time when exit options have very competitive compensation and offer superior quality of life.

First and second years are just not very valuable to a law firm. The real value comes from mid-level associates, who are already trained to run large parts of deals without having their hand held by other lawyers. Of course some people are pushed out; some junior associates frankly aren't cut out for Big Law work (or any type of paid work) and it quickly shows. Others just aren't very good cultural fits. The hope is that enough of those juniors turn out to be competent enough associates down the line.

But everything with the recent big law raises was part of a huge effort to keep mid-level and senior-level associates working for a bit longer; especially given that partnership isn't the attainable golden apple that it once was.

The industry is really not the "let's push the dude out that makes 220,000 so we can keep the guy that makes 190,000" mentality you think it is. Partners want people who have talent to make their lives easier; and frankly, with billing levels what they are, mid-levels/senior associates are the biggest revenue generators to any law firm.

[Anonymous User]

Are you daft?

1. Biglaw is not growing. Associate counts today are about what they were 15 years ago. Yet they hire a ton of new associates every year. How are they expected to make room other than by letting people go? Now that we've established that this is a game of musical chairs, wouldn't you want to let the 3-4 years go, since they're more expensive?

2. If you're a URM you're playing musical chairs with a lead weight tied to your ankles. I can show you statistics but URMs have a much lower probability of making partner.

3. Law firms lie. That's what lawyers do, we lie. They'll lie to you like you lie on your briefs. For lawyers, words are not a means to communicate the truth, they're a means to manipulate others for their benefit.

So YES OF COURSE APPLY FOR JOBS ASAP. If you find a recruiter you trust, use them.

This post is unnecessarily alarmist and exaggerated. One of the things TLS consistently gets wrong is the extent to which attrition at law firms is voluntary. The majority of departures (especially before year 5-6 or so) are because people don't want to put up with the hours, stress, etc. involved in working at a large firm - not because they get pushed out. Law firms generally don't want to push out good midlevels, who--while more expensive--are capable of doing much more sophisticated work (and working much more efficiently) than junior associates can.

This is what firms say (because they don't want to be accused of not having enough work) and what pushed out associates say (because they want to be know as someone who wasn't given work). It's also total bullshit.

The increased efficiency of midlevels is not enough to save them.
1. Sometimes, they're not more efficient because first-years are more motivated. Most of this work is grunt work that anyone can do (writing, research, proofing).
2. Even if midlevels are more efficient, that's already factored into their billable hour. If your billable hour is $700 and a first year's is $450, you have to be at least 50% more efficient just to be as valuable as they are.
3. Sometimes midlevels will hog work they should be pushing down, and view first-years as their adversaries. This poisons the culture and hurts clients. This is another reason why less-than-stellar midlevels have to go.

Biglaw does not have the work to grow any bigger. It's stagnating. It also needs fresh blood. I forget which firm, Quinn or Boies, tried to do away with their summer associate program and entry-level hiring and it didn't work. Stagnating revenue and new hires = someone has to go to make room. It's as simple as that. Some leave by choice, but most by force.

I think most leave by choice and even in this instance it would be by choice. I’m not sure how doing away with entry level hiring would be a bad business move though. Can you elaborate on why it didn’t work?

[QContinuum]

I think most leave by choice and even in this instance it would be by choice. I’m not sure how doing away with entry level hiring would be a bad business move though. Can you elaborate on why it didn’t work?

Quinn was the firm that tried eliminating their summer program to cut costs. They instead decided to use a portion of the savings to offer signing bonuses to 3Ls who summered elsewhere. (They also continued to offer huge signing bonuses to clerks.) It apparently didn't work well, because most 2L SAs actually like their firms and want to stay, instead of taking a gamble on switching firms (top law students are legendarily risk-averse).

See viewtopic.php?f=23&t=281934.

[6333co]

I don't know what firm you're at, or if you actually know how things work, but Big Law is not "stagnating" at the moment. Maybe if another recession hits soon that's another story, but plenty of firms right now are desperate to keep good mid-levels and senior associates, at a time when exit options have very competitive compensation and offer superior quality of life.

First and second years are just not very valuable to a law firm. The real value comes from mid-level associates, who are already trained to run large parts of deals without having their hand held by other lawyers. Of course some people are pushed out; some junior associates frankly aren't cut out for Big Law work (or any type of paid work) and it quickly shows. Others just aren't very good cultural fits. The hope is that enough of those juniors turn out to be competent enough associates down the line.

But everything with the recent big law raises was part of a huge effort to keep mid-level and senior-level associates working for a bit longer; especially given that partnership isn't the attainable golden apple that it once was.

The industry is really not the "let's push the dude out that makes 220,000 so we can keep the guy that makes 190,000" mentality you think it is. Partners want people who have talent to make their lives easier; and frankly, with billing levels what they are, mid-levels/senior associates are the biggest revenue generators to any law firm.

It varies by firm but, as a whole, the top 100 firms are stagnating in terms of revenue growth. It's been like this for a while. I can find the links if you need them.

Yours and HLS's worldviews would imply that revenue is stagnating because firms can't retain associates. In other words, you believe that the work is there, and firms just don't have the bodies to do it. You imagine them as turning down work, and revenue, because they don't have the people to do it. But that just can't be true because it would be an exceedingly easy problem to fix. It's the other way around, there isn't enough premium ($450 first year rates, $700 5th year rates, $1,100 partner rates) work to go around, and firms have to bring in fresh blood to invigorate morale, which means some have to go.

Any way, no need to debate this forever so I'll be moving on.

[6333co]

Well, our billable target is 1950 so 1800 wouldn’t be crazy and I think that’s what I’m pacing right now. Even though I still plan to leave, it’s nice to hear a less pessimistic/alarmist perspective.

You risk nothing by looking elsewhere because, even if this was all a misunderstanding and you're on the partner track, your firm will let you know and beg you to stay once you take this other offer to them. OTOH, if you take this other offer to them and they wish you well, then you know you dodged a bullet.

[6333co]

Last post . . .

Here's a really good visual illustration of the stagnant revenue growth the last decade. Keep in mind that revenue can grow while associate counts stay level (or drop), because associate billing rates went up.

https://medium.com/@jaesunum/dataviz-an ... 4a23683685 (dark blue = good revenue growth, light blue = poor revenue growth, pink/red = revenue decline)

That being said, there's talk of a "new normal" and return to 10% annual revenue growth soon so who knows.

[Anonymous User]

What V firm? I’m in a similar situation but the issue is the quality of work. Also URM. No bad reviews but also not the go to person. Very few URM midlevels.

[Anonymous User]

What V firm? I’m in a similar situation but the issue is the quality of work. Also URM. No bad reviews but also not the go to person. Very few URM midlevels.

It’s a v50. The quality of the work also leaves much to be desired.

[Anonymous User]

Well, our billable target is 1950 so 1800 wouldn’t be crazy and I think that’s what I’m pacing right now. Even though I still plan to leave, it’s nice to hear a less pessimistic/alarmist perspective.

You risk nothing by looking elsewhere because, even if this was all a misunderstanding and you're on the partner track, your firm will let you know and beg you to stay once you take this other offer to them. OTOH, if you take this other offer to them and they wish you well, then you know you dodged a bullet.

Is this true? I am in the lateral process now, and wondering if when I give notice (if I'm lucky enough to get an offer) anyone will do anything to try to keep me around.