Greedy Fucks to bread lines!!!

^^^^BEST COMMENT OF THE DAY^^^^

first bitches!

You're 3rd douche bag!

I got laid off by K&E a couple of months ago, but it was b/c I spent all my time on ATL trying to get FIRST!!!

Go Ron Go!!!

I hear McDonald's is hiring.

this is more than just a little terrifying for people who recently accepted offers to kirkland's chicago office.

Blackwater Security team to the GALLOWS!!!

I hear McDonald's is hiring.

3:55-

PWN#D!!!!!!!

Anyone know what department these associates are being freed from?

private equity?

I hope they are getting laid off. Serves these firms right for puffing up you jealous bitches in the first place.

This is the problem with the lemming, lockstep biglaw hiring process: it only works uphill. Firms like K&E can't go from 70 summers to 30 just because the work dries up or you people would start screaming and jumping out windows and shit.

Told you.

4:06, jealous much?

Do you have any idea how big Kirkland Chicago is? 10 associate departures at a firm that size is completely unremarkable.

Why so bitter 4:06, no OCI?

I wonder if they'll hire me

I am in the chicago office of K&E and have not heard of any layoffs. In fact in my department, there have been issues about who gets the new associates.

I don't know about the veracity of this, but layoffs are bound to happen at some private equity-focused firms. What else is K&E going to do with their M&A-P/E cogs now that business has slowed down? The shop isn't diversified enough to have work for all of them. For all their pretense of having a full-service, general corporate practice, K&E core corporate business is P/E. The fantastic profits they've may the last few years are all from P/E-related work. Now that that business has slowed down, whoops....

4:15, You might be right, but business slows down and business picks up, and 2L's read blogs, and learn which firms made layoffs and which gritted their teeth.

Why would they lay off 3rd through 6th years? They're way more profitable than 1st/2nd years.

4:15 - spoken like an also-ran. Do you still have your rejection letter?

Typo corrections:

"K&E [sic] core corporate business..." = K&E's...

"The fantastic profits they've may [sic] the last few years" = The fantastic profits they've made the last few years...

My apologies.

I don't get this: 5-10 members of a 500+ office are let go? From 4 classes? So, what, 1 or 2 people from each class have been told to leave? Is that tough times, or just business as usual? I thought many firms push out some unproductive employees as times goes along.

"I wonder if they'll hire me

Posted by: L2L | October 16, 2007 04:14 PM"

No, but they'll lay you off.

No, 4:19, I'm not a K&E reject; I'm a litigator who's enjoying the schadenfreude. Sure, transactional work brings in big dough for firms, but lit is far more consistent.

Didn't a large group of 6th years recently make partner?

4:28, as mentioned many times here, all on-track 6th years are made non-equity partners at K&E.

Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!

Well, Sidley just assured us at our town hall meeting today that there would not be any layoffs here. So the kirkland associates should all come on over!

If Sidley has to hold a town hall meeting to tell you the ship isn't sinking, it's time to man the lifeboats.

Since when are 10 people across 4 associate classes notable?

Hey, Lat. Do you even know how many associates are in K&E Chicago?

the sky is falling!!!

This is a partner conspiracy to dampen further talk of associate raises.

I've heard the K&E rumors. But I heard the affected associates - who are still there, since they have until the end of the year to find new gigs - are LITIGATORS (not corporate / private equity).

Gosh, I hope Skadden doesn't have to dip back under 2000.

I wonder if this will make it harder for Anthony Ciolli to find work.

I also heard they were litigators, not corporate/transactional.

What about the chick who punched these guys? Was she laid off too?

actually the hiring partner that shot this guy made the decision to lay these people off because they had the audacity to try and defend him from her horrible assault!

The individuals were let go for performance reasons. It happens every year.

It's always fun to see the Sidley trolls on here enjoy themselves whenever K&E is put in a negative light. Anything to make them feel better about being (at best) a distant second in Chicago.

Oh noes!!!1 We're all doomed. I should've been a banker!!!!!1!!111

lol @ 5:10, probably right on the layoffs, but watching the Kirkland-Sidley Chicago "fight" is like watching the Cubs-White Sox "rivalry": thinking it's so important when the grownups are busy on the East Coast.

Sidley did not hold the town hall meeting just for the purpose of telling us they would not have layoffs. They have a meeting every year, and mentioned it at this meeting probably because of these types of rumors floating around.

5:13, That pretty much nails it.

Lat should have verified sources and done a reality check before posting a sensationalist story that Kirkland Chicago is "laying off" associates. Very scummy, National Enquirer-like. That a few associates amongst 300+ could be submitting below average work product and/or slacking off, and hence asked to leave, is not justification to fuel some massive Kirkland layoff rumor.

Chicago to overweight midwesterners!!!

The rumor that I heard was that they were laying these kids off to increase our bonuses next year.

Lat:
I think it's time for a post discussing how litigators are dime-a-dozen lawyers, while a good corporate lawyer invaluable.
-Just a thought.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that this blog is losing more and more credibility everyday??

easy 5:28, we are the ones who bail you out when you f up. we do actual legal work, instead of business paper pushers masquerading as attorneys.

relax broseph, when it comes time to fight for may pay raises.. we will still be fighting for you spineless corporate types nonetheless.

I've heard these rumors too. I don't know whether they are true or not, since I'm not at K&E, but I don't object to Lat passing them along (with numerous disclaimers).

This is a gossip blog. Caveat lector.

I miss A3G.

5:31, why should this blog have credibility, this is a legal TABLOID, not the freaking WSJ Law Blog.

Absolutely not true ... litigation is extremely busy at K&E Chicago. No one is being let go by 8 PM, let alone let go from the firm.

What's the difference between a layoff and a performance-based ask to leave? Honestly. I'm wondering what misstep a fourth year (for example) could suddenly make (is this when K&E does its reviews it seems early) to warrant a performance based talking to mid-year. And for that happen to nine other associates.

I really miss my homies. UNNNNNNNNNNNNG

5:13 - You're right. New York is tits. You can rent a cramped apartment for $4K/month. You can sidestep the trash on the sidewalks. You can talk about all the exciting, sophisticated work you think only happens in New York.

Personally, I'll take my NY salary and my above-NY bonus and live comfortably here in Chi.

So, bickering aside, can we get some kind of confirmation from K&E Chicago?

K&E has been conducting its reviews now for the 12 month period that ended 6/30/07. So performance based makes sense.

Chicago: Texas salaries at NYC cost of living and quality of life.

5:48 - Fair point.

A question for the old guys: when Shearman et al laid off associates a few years back, which classes were most affected?

5:37 - Associates at K&E are never let go before 8pm regardless of practice group... that does not mean that a few underperformers (probably only bill 2300/year instead of the normal 2600) are let go from time to time.

5:47

Thanks.

So assuming that the timing is appropriate (which it seems to be) my broader point is - is there a difference (as someone else suggested) between a lay off and a more "aggressive" performance review. Meaning - is the issue truly one of a change in behavior or work by the associate or the firm changing the standards (without notice presumably) by which it is judging? So is there really a difference between saying layoff and performance based?

Rust hydrangeas to $400k!

I want to be laid off....then at least I would have had a job :(

5:56--It can be both. One thing to know is that performance (relative to your classmates) which may be okay as a second year is sometimes unacceptable as a more senior associate. And with 6th years, some of them are just getting the "you won't make partner in '08" message, which is tantamount to being told to leave.

Also, the review year no longer ends on 6/30--they moved it back.

Review year still ends June 30th. they changed the billable hour year.

5:48 -- what a moronic comment. Chicago salaries are actually on par with every major city other than New York, and until this latest round of pay raises it was on par with them as well.

And the cost of living is not even close to New York's. Chicago is a relatively cheap city to live in. I know all kinds of 1st and 2nd year associates who bought nice 2Br condos in great neighborhoods for under $400,000--the same would have cost $1 million+ in New York.

You best learn yo'self some facts before running your mouth.

I just spoke to my 4th year friend in K&E's Chicago tax group that was told he had until the end of the year to find a new job. He indicated that they told him that the firm's decision was performance based and he was not aware of others that were being terminated.

This is, at best, a smear campaign. However, more likely, this is simply the product of one or more K&E associates who got dinged in their annual performance review and have gone out to the market with their resumes and attempted to rationalize their circumstances.

Agreed. K&E is more likely to be the leader in raises than to do layoffs.

PE is doing fine...there was a fear of slowing, but actually it is not at all. Securitizations on the other hand have died for the time being (for obvi reasons)

...seriously, people, chill out

Actually, I heard that K&E has decided to mothball its Chicago office. Not enough business and too many dead-wood partners. Oh well, it was a good run for a while.

Lat, why don't you post this news on the front of your site (include a few disclaimers, of course, and all will be fine)

Chicago: New York City of the Midwest to them, Texas of the North to the rest of the world

All the layoffs were in the SpaceLaw department. Don't worry.

Frankly, I fail to see the story here. During their annual reviews, 5-10 mid-level associates get asked to find new jobs by a 500 lawyer office? Isn't this standard operating procedure for every big law firm? If it's not, I would be shocked. This isn't a social club--it's not an outrage that folks are nudged aside as they get closer to the top of the pyramid.

Anyone who thinks K&E's PE department has slowed down since the credit crunch is COMPLETELY (and in many ways unfortunately) misinformed. That is all.

That's right, 6:04, plus their severance is more than you'll make all year.

Someone asked why 3rd - 6th years for layoffs. IF they're lay-offs, back in the early 2000's, it was often the midlevel associates laid off first, with the perception that these associates were far enough out of law school that it wouldn't hurt the firms' reputations with law schools and law school students. Of course, the layoffs eventually reached down to incoming associates, too.

If they are Performance-related, then it's because a firm will easily give you a pass for your first year (and maybe second year) unless your performance and work ethic are abysmal.

Shouldn't we expect this from major firms? Unless you're at one of the top NYC firms, those associate raises came with a big pinch to firm finances and PPP. There's simply not as much room in the budget to tolerate people who aren't viewed as necessary anymore. I bet a lot more people lose their jobs for performance reasons this season than would have last year.

Layoffs are going to be specific to particular practice area needs. Why 3rd year through 6th years, and not junior attorneys? Because they have too many for their work flow (duh). Also perhaps because after a few years they can separate the wheat from the chaffe.

I doubt the raises explain much. Firms have generally raised their rates, and from a PPP perspective, it's not much of a difference. Take Skadden, with PPP of about $2 million across 400 partners, for a profit of $800 million. They have 1600 non-partner attorneys. A $1000 raise across the board will cost the partnership $1.6 million. Hence a $5000 raise will hit PPP at a level of 1%, and the $15,000 across the board hike was about 3% (a little more given compression/bonus adjustments). Frankly, the partners could care less. They are more concerned with ensuring that they maintain growth. One extra associate adds a margin of $250,000 to $600,000. They can't afford *not* to pay the hike.

Hilarious - when I interviewed with Kirkland's M&A group (Corporate Group?) they emphasized that they do mainly private equity M&A and thus could withstand the economy so much better than other firms...

11:50, K&E has higher PPP than all but a handful of NYC firms. Literally--I think they're #6 in the country. If raises were causing layoffs, they'd be happening at almost every other firm first.

y'all are way too obsessed with biglaw. Get a job and do it well.

I hate when people use the word "literally."

8:33:

Do you mean that figuratively, or do you literally "hate" it when people use the word "literally"? If you mean it literally, that is a pretty strong emotion to have in response to one's word choice. But maybe you are a douche.

I heard that Winston just laid off 2-3 associates. DISCLAIMERS: this may or may not be true.

Please post.

IF any of these rumored lay-offs are due to the credit crisis, a looming recession, over-hiring, law suits against firms, or whatever, THEN, at least in the case of the top 4 or 5 offices in Chicago, such lay-offs could be averted by simply cutting back by about 50% on the lunches, drinks and activities to which 2008 summer associates will be treated (don't worry summers, 50% of the norm will still blow your minds and make you fat).

7:01 PM is the only poster who actually sounded like he had reliable info, but no one in here even noticed. So, it doesn't sound like just a "rumor" to me and the poster identified which practice group was affected. Why don't you self-obsessed freaks stop to read something before spouting?

Lay-offs aren't all K&E is facing.

One can glean from reading certain filings in an action pending in the N.D. Illinois (07 C 975) that impliedly K&E has been charged with repeated violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (interception of numerous cell phone calls of one of its former employees). Competitive advantage, eh?

Check it out!

Oh no! Someone impled that there has been some allegation by someone else about Kirkland? What am I going to do I do now? I still have law loans. . .

You can't get the same apt. in Chicago as in NYC, b/c the apt. in Chicago is located in a Midwestern TTT in decline.

12:29 - uh....huh?

12:50 - TTT = "Third Tier Town" (i.e., Chicago)

The only thing about New York that is better than Chicago are the giant NY style slices of pizza they sell on every corner. Although Chicago deep dish is good every now and then, it does not compare...

I love when Chicago people say, "But my apartment's bigger!" Yeah, that's important, because you spend all your non-working hours there because the town closes down at 7 pm.

Someone asked about the infamous Shearman layoffs. I was a first-year when it happened and it mostly affected people in years 3-5. Year 3 was decimated because they wanted to cull people before they became eligible for S&S's highly advertised third year retention bonus. Some second years who nobody liked got a boot, but those were a few and far between. First years were safe. Layoffs were spread evenly across the firm (even though litigation was busy, they cut litigators and then reassigned some from juniors from other depts).

"Sources say that these associates (1) were told that they had until the end of this year to find new jobs, and (2) were not previously made aware of any problems with their performance."

(1) is true
(2) is not

These reductions were performance based, pure and simple.

as a NYC transplant to chicago, i am never going back. there is no doubt that NYC holds a slight edge on cultural offerings; that's beyond doubt. but chicago is clearly one of the top cities in the world by any metric, and none of our country's "great" cities offer more bang for you buck than Chicago. on top of that, it's clean. if money was no object, it would be a toss up for me b/w SFC, NYC and Chicago for best city in America. so until i'm independently wealthy, i will proudly hang my hat in one of the best places i've ever lived.

"I love when Chicago people say, "But my apartment's bigger!" Yeah, that's important, because you spend all your non-working hours there because the town closes down at 7 pm."

Weak.

1:03 - TTT = "Third Tier Town" (i.e., Chicago

What cities fall into the Second Tier?

What's the buzz around Chicago today (at K & E or elsewhere) as to this rumor?

Some of the posters above indicated that their firms have assured them that there would not be lay-offs. Any word as to whether firms will be giving any comfort to their 2008 associates (i.e. those who just accepted post-summer offers)?

2:31 -- You rock! And I agree. I've lived in NYC, SF, and Chicago, and sure NYC has a bit more to offer culturally, but it's not enough to make a difference in my every day life. I mean, it's not like Chicago has such a dearth in cultural activities that I can exhaust all the city has to offer. I will never be able to go to every restaurant or every bar, or see every play, etc. in Chicago, so having a little more of that stuff available (if I lived in NY) would be irrelevant practically speaking.

The layoff "rumors" are something that I am surprised have not hit the blogspot before now. The Los Angeles office has been decimated in the last 18 months as a result of the laying off of 10+ nonshare partners last year, which caused associate panic and massive losses. The Chicago office also laid off non-share partners last year as well as Of Counsel. So it seems that this is not a new trend.

I don't know for a fact whether these rumors are true, but I worked at K&E until fairly recently. I compared my phone listing with the K&E website and there are a good number of attorneys "missing", more than I would expect from attrition. Some were non-share partners (NSPs, as they are called). Some of the "victims" were absolutely no surprise to me, based on performance.