It was the wrong thread

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

While playing cards in Las Vegas this weekend, another player at the table related that he had a bunch of Latham lawyers on his deal until they were laid off. He said that L&W laid off 950 lawyers firm-wide. That can't be right, can it?

According to ATL, as of February 27, 2009, Latham had laid off 190 associates and 250 staff (a total of 440). The managing partner said the cuts represented 12% of U.S. associates in the firm.

ETA: The linked article says the 190 figure is on top of any "stealth layoffs" the firm "may have" conducted in the past year. Since I stopped caring about the fate of any Biglaw associates, I leave it to you to decide what that means about the veracity of the 950 figure (which boggles, if 190 is 12% of the total, because that would, if true, mean Latham secretly laid off 32% of its associates before openly laying off 12% of whoever was left).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

According to ATL, as of February 27, 2009, Latham had laid off 190 associates and 250 staff (a total of 440). The managing partner said the cuts represented 12% of U.S. associates in the firm.

ETA: The linked article says the 190 figure is on top of any "stealth layoffs" the firm "may have" conducted in the past year. Since I stopped caring about the fate of any Biglaw associates, I leave it to you to decide what that means about the veracity of the 950 figure (which boggles, if 190 is 12% of the total, because that would, if true, mean Latham secretly laid off 32% of its associates before openly laying off 12% of whoever was left).

I fired 12% of my firm one day. I only recently have again been in a position where I could fire 12%.

[Jack Manfred]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

According to ATL, as of February 27, 2009, Latham had laid off 190 associates and 250 staff (a total of 440). The managing partner said the cuts represented 12% of U.S. associates in the firm.

ETA: The linked article says the 190 figure is on top of any "stealth layoffs" the firm "may have" conducted in the past year. Since I stopped caring about the fate of any Biglaw associates, I leave it to you to decide what that means about the veracity of the 950 figure (which boggles, if 190 is 2% of the total, because that would, if true, mean Latham secretly laid off 32% of its associates before openly laying off 12% of whoever was left).

He made it sound like these were recent layoffs (at least for the attorneys that were on his deal). But that would be a staggering amount even if it was associates and staff and counted both rounds.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

He made it sound like these were recent layoffs (at least for the attorneys that were on his deal). But that would be a staggering amount even if it was associates and staff and counted both rounds.

950 is untrue, but (i believe, on informed speculation) it's more than double the 190 announced, and includes a meaningful number of partners. 950 might be about right for total lawyer + staff layoffs. New York was the hardest hit office--something like a third of associates let go.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

950 is untrue, but (i believe, on informed speculation) it's more than double the 190 announced, and includes a meaningful number of partners. 950 might be about right for total lawyer + staff layoffs. New York was the hardest hit office--something like a third of associates let go.

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of douchebags.

[Hank Chinaski]

Saturdays the mail lady leaves a banded packet of our mail outside our 3rd floor office door. The smaller firm on the second floor gets its the same way. We represent a Fortune 100 company with a very recognizable logo.

Earlier, as I walked by the second floor firm's door I saw a check envelope on the top of their mail packet with that logo. The second floor firm doesn't represent big companies, so I knew the check was mine. If I wait until they get the mail Monday, then get it to us, we'll lose a day, or maybe two, before we can deposit it.

Am I violating Federal law if I just take it, or is there a self-help provision to the postal code?

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Saturdays the mail lady leaves a banded packet of our mail outside our 3rd floor office door. The smaller firm on the second floor gets its the same way. We represent a Fortune 100 company with a very recognizable logo.

Earlier, as I walked by the second floor firm's door I saw a check envelope on the top of their mail packet with that logo. The second floor firm doesn't represent big companies, so I knew the check was mine. If I wait until they get the mail Monday, then get it to us, we'll lose a day, or maybe two, before we can deposit it.

Am I violating Federal law if I just take it, or is there a self-help provision to the postal code?

Man, that's tough. If you take it you get yourself that extra day or two of interest in the ol' checking account. But if you take it, open it and realize that your neighbors took your client? Awk-ward.

[mommylawyer]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Saturdays the mail lady leaves a banded packet of our mail outside our 3rd floor office door. The smaller firm on the second floor gets its the same way. We represent a Fortune 100 company with a very recognizable logo.

Earlier, as I walked by the second floor firm's door I saw a check envelope on the top of their mail packet with that logo. The second floor firm doesn't represent big companies, so I knew the check was mine. If I wait until they get the mail Monday, then get it to us, we'll lose a day, or maybe two, before we can deposit it.

Am I violating Federal law if I just take it, or is there a self-help provision to the postal code?

Are you absolutely certain they didn't farm out a small matter to your neighbor that y'all may have been conflicted out of, or was so small that wouldn't make business sense to pay your firm's fee's?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by mommylawyer

Are you absolutely certain they didn't farm out a small matter to your neighbor that y'all may have been conflicted out of, or was so small that wouldn't make business sense to pay your firm's fee's?

I think Hank found a polite way of saying that the guys on the second floor are bottom feeders who do nothing but sue his fine upstanding clients.

And remember, Hank's in Detroit. We aren't talking about interest. We're talking about getting the cash in the bank before the bankruptcy filing.

I think the point is moot now that the banks are shut, but it would have been nice for Hank to have maybe helpfully picked up their mail and put it in a safe place for them.I can't believe the post office would just leave it there out in open.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by mommylawyer

Are you absolutely certain they didn't farm out a small matter to your neighbor that y'all may have been conflicted out of, or was so small that wouldn't make business sense to pay your firm's fee's?

Why would the envelope not by addressed either to Chinaski, Cheatum, and Howe or to the interloper? How hard is it to figure out whom it's for?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Why would the envelope not by addressed either to Chinaski, Cheatum, and Howe or to the interloper? How hard is it to figure out whom it's for?

to read it would require me to pick up the bundle, but one can assume the check is mine, just mis-directed.

why do all these people fight the hypo?

[Sparklehorse]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to read it would require me to pick up the bundle, but one can assume the check is mine, just mis-directed.

why do all these people fight the hypo?

Because you are creating an "issue" out of nothing, beyond even what a law professor would do?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to read it would require me to pick up the bundle, but one can assume the check is mine, just mis-directed.

why do all these people fight the hypo?

So you're worried whether picking up the mail bundle is a crime or otherwise improper? I say no, especially since you're not in a mailbox.

[mommylawyer]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to read it would require me to pick up the bundle, but one can assume the check is mine, just mis-directed.

why do all these people fight the hypo?

Not fighting your hypo, just giving you the perspective from in-house. I sometime have these little dog claims that the internal client inist be brought...either they will lose or they'll win with no real shot at recovery...then they'll be pissed when the expense hits their books, so I may farm that out to a cheap err 'bottom feeder'....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to read it would require me to pick up the bundle, but one can assume the check is mine, just mis-directed.

why do all these people fight the hypo?

Spare us the agony of wondering, Hank. What did you do?

Or was this all just about letting us know that you have big important clients?