248: Thanks for the inside info -- if it's legit.

I don't see a problem with what Ropes did, or how they did it.

Just because we're lawyers, and just because many of us have substantial school debt, DOES NOT mean we are entitled to jobs. Law firms are not in the welfare business. They need to make money, and the only way to make money is to retain top talent. Like it or not, "top talent" is not first years. It isn't mid-levels either. Top talent = partners with clients that pay the bills.

Do those partners need associates to do the grunt work? Of course. And partners/firms will reward those associates who do the grunt work efficiently and tirelessly. And partners will keep those associates they like to work with and who do a good job.

But that doesn't mean firm management will always make perfect decisions. This recession blindsided and embarrassed a lot of people in ALL industries. And, as a consequence of the downturn, virtually all industries (except the government) have been right-sizing.

Some firms will cut too deeply. This will affect their culture, their associates' morale, and the market's perception of the firm's ability to manage themselves and their clients' issues. And as a result, some firms are going to fail (some already have).

Some firms will not cut at all or will not cut enough. They will slowly bleed associates through "attrition", performance-based firings, or layoffs. These firms will keep going back to the firing well, and their culture and employee morale will suffer because associates will constantly live and work with the fear of being laid off at any moment.

Finally, some firms will right-size well, and will successfully change/adapt their business model to fit the shifting demands for top quality legal services. This might require more discounts or write-offs, lower rates, different billing and compensation structures, and/or different recruitment and retention programs. But these firms will not merely survive; they will FLOURISH in the downtown and will emerge with more market share and a better reputation than other legal dinosaurs.

Sorry for the Goldilocks example, but the comments on this thread clearly reveal that lawyers generally are idiots.

You lost your job? Yeah, it sucks. But whatever your now-battered ego may tell you late at night, you were never "entitled" to a job based on your law school/firm performance. You are not "owed" anything by your employer firm. So don't go on a hate campaign against your firm while hiding behind the anonymity of the "Guest" commenter on ATL... unless, that is, your firm REALLY screwed you over (ahem, Latham)

EPIC FAIL.

Good points, 256 -- it's good to hear input from non-Big Law people (if you're legit).

I think Big Law and law schools need to find some middle ground between their current models and the models of other professionals -- especially medicine. The problem with lawyers is that they're too many of them. This worked fine during irrational booms, when everyone had money to pay top dollar, and deals were constantly churned out.

But now, there is gross over-capacity. There are too many big law firms, and they (try to) charge too much for their services.

I think 256 shows that clients and in-house lawyers aren't as petty as many immature Big Law junior and mid-level associates. If the price and the service is right, clients will hire your firm. If someone you worked with and like starts charging you too much or produces shitty work, you rethink that business relationship and possibly move on.

And finally, 256 hits it right on the head: what client will want to pay a junior associate $300-400 for doc review, when a contract attorney will do the same job for far less? Times are changing ("this ship be sinkin," some might say), and Big Law better get its act together.

As for the rest of you schmucks:

EPIC FAIL

Oops... "there are" instead of "they're". I gotta stop drinking a beer between each Friday night ATL posts.

EPIC FAIL

Good points 87, and I like the Star Wars conceit. But I feel that once Big Law firms recognize that clients are flocking to boutique/speciality firms with lower costs, it will be too late for many firms.

But... despite your good points, you double-posted, thus

EPIC FAIL

13:

Like all liberal imbeciles, you have no clue what you're talking about. Market rose because of the huge, unexpected increase in the Consumer Confidence index, not hecatse of Obumble's SCOTUS pick.

EPIC FAIL