Layoffs
Pillsbury Offers ‘Voluntary Departure Plan’ to Lawyers
Posted Feb 24, 2009 11:25 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Above the Law was the first to reveal upcoming layoffs at Pillsbury when it told of a tipster who overheard a lawyer discussing the plan in a loud cell phone conversation on a crowded train.
Now the blog has obtained an internal memo offering Pillsbury lawyers a chance to leave of their own accord before the reduction in force.
The law firm is offering three months of pay and other unspecified benefits to associates and counsel who choose to leave, Above the Law reports. The blog points out that the buyout is not all that different from severance packages offered by firms.
Both lawyers and staffers will be affected by the upcoming layoffs, according to the memo. “We want to be clear that the voluntary departure program will not obviate the need for an involuntary reduction in force,” the memo reads, in part. “Attorneys who are selected for involuntary reduction will be notified of their selection in early March.”
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Feb 24, 2009 12:40 PM CST
“There was no order given to abandon ship. It simply wasn’t necessary.” —A.E.P. “Ted” Briggs, RN (deceased), recounting his departure from H.M.S. Hood.
Flag this comment
Al Veoli
Feb 27, 2009 5:40 AM CST
I think the firm is not being fair. After all, don’t they have to give WARN act notice anyway? That means at least 60 - 90 days notice before giving someone the gate?
If so, any severance paid now would not have to be paid in addition to the 60 to 90 days.
I say wait until you are asked to leave. You’ll have 60-90 days even if you get no severance, and how likely is that going to be?
What’s with the guy above—he’s all over the place with these stupid Maritime facts. Do we really give a hoot? WTF?
Flag this comment
Steve
Feb 27, 2009 8:04 AM CST
Offer a free croissant and a poke in the belly with a little laugh to everyone who takes the plan…they’re so light and fluffy.
Flag this comment
troll hunter
Feb 27, 2009 8:04 AM CST
Don’t feed the trolls.
Flag this comment
Jim
Feb 27, 2009 8:13 AM CST
Under the federal WARN Act, 60 days advance notice of a “mass layoff” is generally required only if, over any 90-day period, you will be terminating without cause (or dramatically reducing the hours of) at least 50 non-part-time employees who comprise at least 33% of the non-part-time employees at a single site of employment. Lawyers who accept Pillsbury’s voluntary package wouldn’t count toward that because they would be choosing to leave. Some states have stricter requirements.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Feb 27, 2009 9:31 AM CST
@4 you must be lost. You’re surrounded and outnumbered!
Steve, in 90 days or so, I expect a lot of ‘em would like that free croissant.
Flag this comment
JDirk
Feb 27, 2009 10:12 AM CST
Well, this is better than “involuntary outplacement.”
Flag this comment
George Sly
Feb 27, 2009 4:39 PM CST
I suspect that Mr. McLeod was being ironic. Ted Briggs was the last of three survivors of HMS Hood which was blown up in the Denmark Strait when a shell from Bismark struck Hood’s munitions magazine.
Just as Briggs did not need to be told to adbandon ship, a lawyer at Pilsbury does not need to be told he/she should be looking for a new job. I’ve been there and I wish them luck.
Flag this comment
MoFoPartner
Feb 28, 2009 9:18 AM CST
Years ago (late 80’s - early 90’s), there was a chairman at pillsbury, madison named T. Neal MacNamra. He was basically like the George W of the past 8 years. Very stupid decisions and unwanting to listen to those with far superior knowledge of how to run a law firm. And during those years, Big Neal billed about 20 hours a month while having 3 hours lunches each day with potential clients who went elsewhere with their legal work. Soon PM found itself in deep do-do and needed to merege with another firm to stay alive. Old Neal was finally encouraged to leave, but like George W’s leaving, the damage was done and no merger could save PM. The result of poor decisions at PM years ago remains today.
Flag this comment
Kalifornia Arnold
Feb 28, 2009 10:44 AM CST
With the dough Pillsbury is offering, they are now on a roll The departing attorneys must really knead the bread that Pillsbury is offering (hopefully, the sum is not inflated). This is the yeast that Pillsbury can do.( Or, maybe Pillsbury is just making this offer to butter up the departing attorneys,)
Flag this comment
DSergi
Mar 1, 2009 8:16 AM CST
As to Mc Load, if thats the same guy from San Antonio that represented the late Robert “Beaver’ Perez, I recall that he was one of Randy Weavers lawyers/followers or such. I tried a Mexican Mafia trial with him in 2000 and heard this type of comment for 8 to 10 weeks. If its not I aplogized to who ever it is.
Flag this comment
Allen Sheketovits
Mar 1, 2009 9:07 PM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.