Lawyers ‘in the Middle’ at Most at Risk of Firings

Layoffs

Lawyers ‘in the Middle’ at Most at Risk of Firings

Posted May 12, 2008, 06:08 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

At big law firms, midlevel lawyers are at the greatest risk of being laid off in the economic downturn.

Dan Weiner, co-chair of the personnel committee at Hughes Hubbard, told the Wall Street Journal Law Blog that junior associates may be safer than their more senior counterparts because their abilities are still being judged.

“You can’t identify that early who’s not going to be a good performer,” he told the blog. Firing new associates following the expensive recruitment process would be “cutting them before you know their performance capabilities, which is not good business.”

Besides senior associates, lawyers most at risk are junior partners and of counsel. That’s because law firms facing tough economic times first scrutinize “expensive people who are underutilized,” he told the blog. He cautioned that he was speaking in general and not specifically about his law firm.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Ethan S. Burger - 2 months, 3 days, 2 hours, 9 minutes ago

Greetings:

While cost-cutting measures are inevitable during economic downturns, is the elimination of more highly compensated senior associates and non-rainmaking partners the most appropriate response?

If such attorneys are experienced in areas in which the law firm practices and they remain productive, would it not be preferable to offer them reduced salaries or deferred compensation as an alternative to termination?

Law firms that shed attorneys during times of falling revenue not only risk the loss of institutional memory, but may trigger a mass exodus of attorneys that law firm management might have wished to retain.

Furthermore, the law firm’s existing clients may be harmed (and thus are more likely to seek alternative counsel) and its ability to attract new clients in the future may be reduced. Laying off lawyers may inhibit the future recruitment of legal should the need arise.

One might wonder what ever happened to the seniority principle. Many organizations have learned that once the “social contract” is broken, it can be difficult to repair.

Lastly, law firms must be cautious not to engage in conduct that may constitute a violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (which covers all persons above age 40) as well as numerous human rights statutes enacted in the States and the District of Columbia that prohibit various forms of discrimination.

Sincerely,

Ethan S. Burger
ethansb@earthlink.net
Posted by NewJerseycounsel - 2 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

"law firms must be cautious not to engage in conduct that may constitute a violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (which covers all persons above age 40).” Sorry but from what I have seen violating the ADA is just part of the standard operating procedure in law fiirms.
Posted by WV counsel - 2 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 4 minutes ago

Re: post #2 - I think you mean the ADEA.
Posted by North Carolina Senior Associate - 2 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 4 minutes ago

Sounds like a great opportunity for law firms that are still seeing heavy work loads to be looking to expand while the more shortsighted (or desperate) firms spin off attorneys who can actually be trusted with independent assignments.
Posted by BR - 2 months, 3 days, 45 minutes ago

Of course the legal profession practices age discrimination - it has been institutionalized by the ABA with the “Young” Lawyers Division.
Posted by robertraver - 2 months, 3 days, 15 minutes ago

Sigh. . . I guess we are now truly only a business. The last vestiges of a profession are gone. Now we even fire our partners when the bottom line wanes. And I thought you were my trusted, vetted and blessed colleague.
Posted by AMB - 2 months, 3 days, 3 minutes ago

To BR: how is the young lawyers division an age discrimination?
Posted by Over40 - 2 months, 2 days, 18 hours, 16 minutes ago

Law firms violate the ADEA by refusing to employ senior, more qualified, more experienced attorneys at the same salary as paid to attorneys just out of law school. They have never been challenged on that practice, because its bad for any associate to be known as one that files a lawsuit against a law firm. But the disparity between what most lawyers earn post-big firm and what the big firms are paying to their most junior people make it only a matter of time before someone over 40 from a top-10 school with 15 year’s experience says: “Why can’t I be a first-year associate?” How will the big firms explain why they cannot?
Posted by anon - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 41 minutes ago

Because experience has nothing to do with the scribe tasks that first years perform. In fact you might argue that the senior attorneys you refer to are less qualified by virtue of their experience. Seriously do you want a first year arguing with you when you have them stay up all night scanning or redacting documents or telling you they want to spend time with their wife or kids. Give me a break.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Layoffs