I’m sure you’ve all heard by now about the bloodbath at Weil yesterday morning. We also heard about some partners leaving Patton Boggs, and some big support/staff layoffs at Jones Day. All in all, not a great day in BigLaw, and some are speculating that we should buckle up for another round of BigLaw layoffs, ala 2009. I sincerely hope not. That would not be good news for anyone, me included. Fox Rothschild did report news of a merger in Denver, and NLJ ran a story about an uptick in large firm hiring, so that’s some good news, at least.
There was a lot of back and forth about these stories in the blogosphere and on Twitter (that is of course, when we weren’t busy looking for Rusty, the red panda). I don’t want to rehash the conversation, but there are a few topics that I think are worth addressing/considering further.
- This is likely the most relevant point for my audience so it’s first. If you’ve been laid off, or feel like you’re about to be laid off, you have a very short and narrow window of opportunity to find another job. I know its awful and it’s not fair, but this is no time to wallow. You just don’t have that luxury. If you spend the next week sulking and nursing your ego – you will have missed the boat. This isn’t meant to be self-promoting – this is free advice. You have a few weeks of time, where your Weil credentials and the shock of the news will carry weight with potential employers. (The same thing happened as Dewey was collapsing – firms were eager to scoop up good talent who found themselves suddenly unemployed). In a few weeks however, the novelty of the situation will dissipate, and you will just be another “unemployed” candidate in the pile of resumes. Take my word on this – start applying for jobs as soon as possible. Take advantage of the position you have now, because in a couple of weeks, it will be gone.
- This one is self-promoting. I told you after the Dewey debacle to be prepared. Hopefully, some of these Weil associates had a recruiter on speed dial. Separately, but on a related note, Lori Tripoli posted this piece yesterday advising candidates to investigate their potential employers before accepting an offer. Candidates need to background the firm as best they can, and consider things like the partnership agreement that governs the firm dynamic – interesting perspective.
- So this is kind of odd – The NYTimes Dealbook was first to break the Weil layoff news. Strangely, the article quoted reactions and comments from consultants etc. How can that be? When you get a scoop like that, don’t you rush to print? And on a Monday morning? Edward Adams from BloombergLaw suggested on Twitter that the info must have been leaked by the firm.
Looks like Weil leaked layoff story to NYT because a) posted so early and b) had react from consultants. Firm wanted clients to know.
— Edward Adams (@edadams) June 24, 2013
(Look Ma, I’ve learned how to embed tweets like a big girl!)
Although I agree that it must have been leaked over the weekend (or even before the weekend), I’m not sure I understand what he means that the firm wanted clients to know. Wanted clients to know what? That the firm was “right-sizing?” To what end? Regardless, as breaking news stories go, it was strange to see comments and reactions in the piece.
- On the Patton Boggs partner departure, here is the original Washington Post piece and here is the Blog of Legal Times report quoted below. Something doesn’t exactly line up here either. (See July 1st update below)
Patton Boggs warned 18 partners earlier this year that their performance was unsatisfactory, and that they needed to improve or find a new firm.
Now 17 of them are parting ways with Patton Boggs. The departures mark the second time this year Patton Boggs has shed a significant number attorneys from its ranks.
No one has disclosed the names of these 18 partners, so there isn’t a way to tell whether the 17 who are leaving are part of that original group. The article suggests at the end (by referencing this ATL piece) that at least some of the departing partners will be moving to Holland Knight, which is opening a Dallas office. The reader is supposed to take away that these same partners, the ones who have not been performing, will be responsible for launching a new office of another firm??? Can’t be.
If you’re not a recruiter and/or a law firm consultant, you might actually buy that. But if you know anything about how partners lateral from one firm to another, you’d see that that can’t possibly be the case. David Lat’s analysis is usually right on target, but something is missing from this story. (Correction: I heard from David and he doesn’t take a position on whether it’s true or whether it’s spin. He pointed me to the 5:10pm update, that I missed in the ATL piece, which credits a tipster and “Robert Luskin’s remarks to the Blog of Legal Times: ‘This is really Act 2 of a play we previewed a few months ago,'” for the position that the departing partners are the non-performing ones). Sorry for the incorrect attribution, David.
I’m still not convinced though that these are the same group of people. No firm takes on, or opens new offices for, partners who aren’t performing. If they are considered dead weight, they are dead weight everywhere, and no one would want them. If they are performing, and have a portable book ($1.5M+ each), then why would Patton Boggs make it out as if they were under-performers being “managed out” of the firm? Optics? I don’t know. It just doesn’t make sense. It may be that Holland is poaching some PB partners for a new Dallas office – but it can’t possibly be the same people who needed a “talking to” a few months ago… You follow?
- Final point here. There was some cautious (schizophrenic, really) speculation yesterday that perhaps things aren’t all that kosher at Weil. Mostly though, the comments suggesting a bigger problem were quickly retracted or qualified. It was weird – like in one breath they were considering the possibility of a collapse, and then quickly pulling back, to reassure the rest of the world that this was a good thing for the firm. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t – I don’t have any inside info.
I’m not predicting some sort of Dewey-esque result here; the Weil financials seem to be strong, and to outsiders, the firm carried this out from a “position of strength” – whatever that means. It bears noting though that if the firm was not careful in delivering this news to the partnership, and rainmakers start to feel some sense of instability, they will leave. And we all know what partner departures mean for a firm’s long term viability… Some people don’t agree with me, that’s okay. But yesterday Weil’s phones were abuzz with recruiter calls… What do you think they were discussing, the weather?
Update 6/26: There have been several interesting articles published since Monday discussing the Weil layoffs from slightly different perspectives. Steven Harper here, Bruce MacEwen here, David Lat here, and the AmLaw Daily here. Enjoy.
Update 7/1: Blog of Legal Times has tracked down the names of the departing Patton Boggs partners. Here is the updated story. As an outsider, I feel confident that given the caliber of firms these partners are transitioning to, none of them had “performance issues.” Also, there is some additional back and forth on the Weil layoffs. More thoughts from Harper here, and a BloombergLaw interview with MacEwen here.
