Talk:Latham & Watkins

Layoffs Changes

Sorry for in-editing your comments here, [it's not considered good form at all on Wiki talk pages to do so] but you make a host of different points that need addressing separately. I've split them up so we can all debate them, get some consensus, and get the encyclopaedic content through into the article.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

NB: Generally, not regarded as great to have loads of cites from te same source (eg:ATL) - so where they're quoting someone (eg:Vault) a quick google often gets back to the 'source article' - which can be more authoritative. Although it depends somewhat on the nature of the quote - for example, an opinion is normally only worthy of consideration once some other source else has commented on the opinion itself. --Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ordering

The section on Latham's very public financial difficulties and mass layoffs should appear before the recognition section because this information is more timely.

This sounds reasonable. Let's run it for comment for a week or so here and see if anyone has anything else to say.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been more than a week. Can I put the layoffs section before the recognition section? Latham just ranked among the bottom 20 firms (out of over 100) in terms of summer associate satisfaction. I think it's clear that the negative news is more timely. What's behind all this is the fact that Latham utilized very high leverage ratios (3.5 associates for each partner), much higher than other law firms. During the boom times, this earned Latham a lot of money. When the downturn came, they were hit harder than most other firms, and now are taking a long, hard fall that other firms are not experiencing. If this is original research and you don't want it on the page, fine, but the ordering regarding Lathams well documented financial difficulties and mass layoffs, and outdated recognitionsnshould reflect what is happening to the firm.

To put a section about outdated recognitions before a more timely financial difficulties and mass layoffs section is to distort the truth. It's pretty clear from EdelJamie's repeated attempts to turn this page into an advertisement that he or she is a Latham PR person who is not interested in presenting this firm in a neutral fashion.

Actually, no - If you check back on his talk page you'll find that some of his actions were entirely accidental, and the admin who blocked him removed the block once that was established. Please see WP:AGF and consider how much good faith YOU are getting right now, despite your agenda - it would be courteous for you to show the same to other editors in return. That said, there are clear attempts to cleanse this article by unregistered users from time to time - but their edits are quickly reverted.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

90% chance that person works in Latham's PR department. Latham's PR group has actually been nominated for an award. [1] I am someone with knowledge about the firm who wants to see the wiki page become more neutral. It was at one point entirely an advertisement.

And I recognise that and hope I can help. But understanding what edits are more likely to survive (and more importantly, why) will help you achieve that. There are a few WP:Policies etc in the box at the top of this page that might be useful to flick through as well.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Timing of awards / recognition

Latham earned it's awards pre-salary freeze, pre-mass layoffs, pre-meltdown.

Source please (aware it was prob once in the article, the I'm trying to get you to tightly tie sources to allegations). Also, if the timing was somewhat co-incidental, I don't see how it's relevant. IF however there is a source criticising them for this, that might be worth including.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the sources in the recognitions and layoffs section and you'll see that all the awards are dated pre-mass layoffs. The only exception is Latham's recent inclusion on the A list. HOWEVER, the author for The American Lawyer has explained that the surveys used for creating the A list were turned in pre-layoffs and that associate satisfaction has since declined. "We should note that the associate survey we use to compute satisfaction was sent out in the spring of 2008, before the waves of layoffs, deferments, and salary cuts hit The Am Law 200... Latham and MoFo, however, have taken hits in associate satisfaction this year."[2]

The author of The American Lawyer has even said on Above The Law that Latham earned its place on the A-list prior to the morale devastating salary freezes and mass layoffs, and that associate satisfaction has since declined.

Okay, while that reference makes it clear that Latham was not alone in the practice, something like "L&W made layoffs only after annual satisfaction surveys were returned" would be fair. with http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202431721884&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 and a similar quality reference for VAULT? The criticism from Above The Law is primary source, and therefore not really usable - you need a source that talks about such criticism to include it, rather than a source criticising.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's all fairly obvious - although a para that summarises the fallout from the layoffs would be reasonable. --Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See directly above.

Reasons L&W badly hit / business model

The recession has exposed the serious flaws in the firm's business model; mainly the fact that the firm failed to adequately develop its countercyclical practice groups.

Says who - you would need an expert in legal business models, being quoted in a WP:RS to include that 'fact' - this sounds like your own opinion, and as such, regardless of whether it is correct or not, it would have no place in an encyclopedia --Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been plenty

Good, pick the best and most authoritative one to use as a source.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this section and I thought the links I posted below would be helpful. Latham has received criticism in the legal press for its layoffs. The cause, per some law firm consultants, was a misforecasting of demand and a poorly balanced practice group mix.

http://www.thelawyer.com/the-transatlantic-elite-2009-the-sweet-sixteen/1000698.article

One year on Latham stunned the market again, this time reporting a 21 per cent drop in average profit per equity partner to $1.8m (£1.23m) followed by the announcement it was laying off 440 employees across its global network, including 12 per cent of its associates.

“It’s a very, very serious management mistake which has to affect them adversely,” argues one legal market consultant of the layoffs, particularly those affecting first-year associates. “They’re taking the cynical view that culturally it doesn’t matter. But if you are one of the top law students at Oxbridge or Harvard now and you have offers from Latham and Slaughter and May, you’d be nuts to take Latham’s offer.”

Latham has also come in for criticism in some sections of the market for failing to hedge the practice well enough.

“Why didn’t Latham hire a major bankruptcy player over the past few years when times were good?” asks one consultant. “My guess is that it was delusional about how long this market would last. Okay, that delusion was shared by millions, but it wasn’t shared by everybody.”

“Latham has fallen off a cliff, along with Orrick and a few others,” says the consultant. “I think this reflects the reduced volume of upper end work. It tends to stay with the top group and dry up more in the next tier down.”

In particular, Latham - and Dell - have come in for criticism that the firm expanded too rapidly when times were good, without much thought for a potential and ­inevitable downturn.

As one comment on TheLawyer. com put it, in response to Dell ­admitting Latham was “in a ­position of over-capacity”: “In other words, things were going well so they expanded as rapidly as ­possible to capitalise on that ­without considering long term staffing requirements and ­workloads.”

http://www.thelawyer.com/latham-salary-thaw-meets-with-hot-and-cold-reception/1003081.article

But although the move will have been welcomed by the US firm’s associates, the word in New York is that the pay rise is less of a signal that market conditions are improving and more a ­necessary step to stem a ­rising tide of junior lawyer exits.

“Latham is doing it because they’re desperate,” said one Manhattan recruitment consultant. “They’ve lost a whole bunch of good associates and, to the extent that there are jobs out there, Latham people are looking. Latham figures it’s the best way to show good faith with their associates, but it’s too little too late. They’re no longer drinking the Kool Aid.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryX999 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryX999 (talk • contribs)

First years in particular / subsequent rankings

Plus, firms rarely resort to laying off first years, except out of complete desperation.

Again, sounds like original research (and again, it makes no difference whether this is true, only what the source for the statement is) --Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Latham laid-off half a first year class in one office, and a lot of first years in other offices.

But that is not worthy of inclusion unless you can find a WP:RS that talks SPECIFICALLY about both laying off first years being unusual AND L&W laying off first years.--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See above - however, a brief mention of this fact, if from a reliable source, would be appropriate.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is completely unheard of among the top law firm, and I challenge anyone to name a top 20 law firm other than Latham that has done this. In short, the firm won't be earning any awards anytime soon. It sank like a stone in the 2010 vault rankings.

Regardless, none of these constitute encyclopaedic content as is - what might be is a short quote taken from a WP:RS editorial about it being unheard of.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor's of Vault have noted that a drop like Latham's is completely unprecedented.

Great - WP:RS and WP:V source for that, and lets agree a quote to include.--Jaymax (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here it is:

"That said, the rankings are not quite as stable as they have been in the past. In most years, there is some sort of shuffle among numbers 8 through 11. This year, however, Latham fell an unprecedented 10 spots down to #17." [3]

Excellent. Here's a better source for the quote. http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gzQ0u_YHMPIwMDH0dXA09_d1cv8wBfDydXM_2CbEdFAB0wdnE!/?blog_id=1260&entry_id=9721

Something like "After the layoffs, Latham fell 10 places in the Vault survey, to 17th. Vault describe the drop as 'unprecedented'"?--Jaymax (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Layoffs

Regardless of the past edit warring, the layoffs at Latham are both significant, and well sourced. The layoffs were not only the first mass layoffs from a Vault 10 firm, but also the largest layoffs by a law firm in US history. The layoffs were important enough to be picked up not just by AboveTheLaw.com, but also AMLaw Daily, and The Wall Street Journal (via Law Blog). The layoffs had such a big impact on the legal industry that "Latham" is now synonymous with layoffs, usually in the form of "I just got Lathamed."

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/27/law-firm-layoff-watch-latham-cuts-190-lawyers-250-staff/ http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwide-layoff-watch-latham-cuts-440-190-associates-250-staff/ http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/02/official-latham-to-cut-190-associates-250-staff-.html

Unless someone has a good argument for why the largest layoff in a major industry is not relevant, I'm planning to put this section back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to sign comments Nycbl1y (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is protected for the next 3 days. Are you saying that that one event should be a major focus of the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call my changes a "major focus." They were near the bottom of the article, and shorter than the notable clients, and notable attorneys sections. Are you suggesting that the largest layoff in the history of a major industry is not noteworthy? Also, it seems like if it's okay for the article to mention the firm getting into the Vault 10 rankings, it would be acceptable to mention it losing that rank. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also add that the layoffs were picked up by the American Bar Association Journal, which called the incident "stunning," (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/march_mayhem_law_firm_layoffs_top_500_today_over_1200_since_friday/) and "record-setting" (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/latham_watkins_lays_off_190_associates_250_staffers/).Nycbl1y (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness and transparency, it would be inappropriate for the information regarding the layoffs and drop in rankings to be removed. We should remember that this is a community resource and not a PR tool for Latham & Watkins. Both the layoff and rankings drop are public knowledge, supported by reliable sources and therefore should be included in the article. For better or for worse, these things did happen and Latham & Watkins have to live with the repercussions of their decisions. Thanks to the internet and resources like wikipedia which are community moderated, powerful parties can no longer control the flow of information and put a lid on newsworthy items. Now that reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022702751.html) have been presented to support that these layoffs actually occurred, I would imagine that this edit war will be settled. Prospero-of-Milan (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Basebal Bugs is an employee of Latham, and I think he's actually acting in good faith. But, it is worth pointing out that some of the edits to the page have IPs that track back to Latham, and I have to imagine a lot of the stuff about awards and notable alumni were added by the PR department. But, I agree with the point in general that there is no reason the Latham page should be limited to cheer leading. If Latham had acquired a 190 attorney firm, this would almost certainly be included in information about the firm's history (190 is bigger than many "big law" firms), so it stands to reason that losing that many attorneys should also be included.Nycbl1y (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the way to proceed would be for someone to write a proposed paragraph covering the layoffs and post it in a new section here on the talk page, where it can be discussed. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I had written that was removed:

On February 27, 2009, several news sources reported mass layoffs at Latham, including 190 lawyers and 250 staff members. The layoffs were described by the Wall Street Journal affiliated blog, Legal Blog Watch as "the largest to date by a U.S.-based firm," and were the first Vault 10 firm to conduct major layoffs, and in the subsequent Vault rankings, Latham dropped from #7 to #17.

The size of the layoffs at Latham and media coverage of the events caused the term "Lathamed" to be coined, referring to losing ones job at a law firm as a result of large scale layoffs. The term "Lathamed" can also imply that first year associates and people with good reviews were let go.

Note that this is much smaller than the "Recognition" section that appears at the top of the article.Nycbl1y (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of keeping everything open and honest, I'll admit that in the above comments...I altered two grammatical errors that were in the original.Nycbl1y (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to including this somewhere in the article if it can be added in a NPOV manner and is thoroughly sourced. Does Legal Bog Watch, even though associated with WSJ, satisfy the reliable source guideline? Someone may want to ask at the pertinent noticeboard, or else look for other sources. The more the better. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree LBW is not the greatest source. They described me as "generally pretty damned funny," and that's simply not true. But, the Latham stuff is actually on WSJ Law Blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/), which is different from Legal Blog Watch (http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/). It was also reported on AbovetheLaw.com, AmLaw Daily, and the ABA Journal. Combined, that's pretty darn reliable, especially since no sources seem to say anything different.Nycbl1y (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms of the proposed text, I agree that information about the layoffs should be included, but that information must adhere to a neutral point of view. I don't know about the vault rankings, I can't get to that url right now. As far as I can see, the WSJ's blog does not claim that Latham is "the first Vault 10 firm to conduct major layoffs", so I removed that. And I'd suggest this is more neutral, since it includes positive information in the two main news sources as well as the negative. Note that I also changed the citation format:

On February 27, 2009, news sources reported layoffs at Latham, including 190 lawyers and 250 staff members. The layoffs were described by the Wall Street Journal affiliated blog, Legal Blog Watch, as "the largest to date by a U.S.-based firm." As part of the layoffs, Latham offered a comprehensive severance package including six months pay up to $100,000 and six months medical coverage, characterized as the "most generous" package ever offered by a major law firm. Latham also deferred the start dates for new hires from the class of 2009 to the middle of December, and offered a payment of $75,000 to new hires who voluntarily deferred their start date until October of 2010.

Please take a look and comment. Also, I think the sourcing is pretty good, but Nycbl1y, can you get access to the ABA article? I see you already have, so that will be easy to incorporate. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think the Vault ranking is relevant. Though, perhaps it should be included in the recognition section (after the other information about Latham's Vault rank). It could be misleading to say they were ranked #7 in 2009 without including the 2010 rank of #17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a neutral addition on the layoffs is relevant and should be included, however some of the previous additions were not so. I'm sure once protection has lifted such a section can be added non-controversially. SGGH ^ping! 07:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few other articles I found on the topic:
Law.com discussing Latham as the largest layoff in absolute numbers (but not by percentage). http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428800862
Vault.com describing the layoffs as the first by a Vault 10 firm. This article also references rumors of "stealth layoffs," which the firm denies, and the March 2008 State of the Firm address in which the firm chairman said there would be no layoffs. http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/blogs/entry-detail/?blog_id=1260&entry_id=8926
WSJ Law Blog article discussing an interview with the firm chairman in April 2010. The chairman said things at Latham are now "Pretty darn good," and also claimed that the firm was over-staffed despite the layoffs (ie: after losing 11% of their attorneys, their head count has still too high). http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/07/a-sit-down-with-latham-chairman-bob-dell/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus to add something neutral. Taking from an earlier edit, I tried to add something. Please feel free to make necessary changes.LedRush (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi LedRush, I reverted you. Can you hold off until there is consensus? There's also a discussion at WP:ANI#Latham & Watkins about the right and wrong versions of the article. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 19:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here minus baseball seems to agree that *something* is appropriate, right? Why not try to get it right?LedRush (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you need to re-read WP:CON - consensus is not a majority vote.

Secondly, I think you need to respect that there is also a discussion about this issue at WP:ANI.

Thirdly, Everyone here minus baseball?

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The ANI is just baseball saying that there is an edit war. There seems to be no substantive discussion there. Also, I understand what consensus is...but if people state one opinion and no longer engage, does that mean consensus can never be reached? Of course not.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"No longer engage"? It's not clear what you're getting at.

There is an ongoing discussion both here and at WP:ANI. The fact I'm discussing it with you at both venues should indicate that there's more than just "Baseball" involved. Regardless, ANI is being read by a huge number of administrators, dealing with a large number of issues. Be patient. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant baseball, not you. Though he seems to have re-engaged.LedRush (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I assumed you didn't mean me ;-) Regardless, we're all busy, we're all editing other articles (I'm 'sposed to be focussed on Afghanistan and Oceania, right now...!) so perceived disengagement doesn't mean an editor has necessarily disengaged. Believe me when I say - Baseball Bugs rarely, if ever, disengages until prodded by an admin ;-) Anyway, we seem to be making progress further down the thread... TFOWR^propaganda 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rush accused me of edit warring, which is silly. If consensus can be reached on the wording (if any) for this layoff stuff, that would be fine. Personally, I don't think it merits more than one sentence in the article. Companies do layoffs all the time, there's nothing special about this one. But the editors who have the most personal interest in this article should decide that point. And it's not decided yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As has been stated above and cited in the article, this is an unprecedented layoff both in size and the fact that it happened at a top law firm. It garnered huge press coverage. It obviously deserves some mention in the article, as you even seem to concede now.

I am not sure what you mean by "Companies do layoffs all the time, there's nothing special about this one. But the editors who have the most personal interest in this article should decide that point." Shouldn't editors with the most personal interest in this say that they have a potential conflict of interest? Or do you mean "interest" as "intellectual curiousity"?LedRush (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Layoffs in law firms are actually very rare, especially compared to other industries. It's the "we're a profession, not just a business" mentality. But, that aside, how is the biggest lay off in US legal history not special?Nycbl1y (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point several credible news sources have been presented that document not only the layoffs but also their significance. No argument, other than "we haven't agreed yet" has been put forward to show why it should not be included. I'm fine with waiting until the discussion has concluded to add it, but right now there appears to be no reason why it should not make it in.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's "significant" or not is up to reliable sources to claim, not us. The other concern I have is that at least some past editors apparently were pushing that info as a way to slam the company. My assumption a year ago was that the original pusher on this point was one of the targeted employees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'd like to see something included, but I'd naturally want to avoid the non-neutral stuff that was added in the past. What were you thinking of adding, and which sources were you intending to use? TFOWR^propaganda 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the thing. They need to post some exact wording and get consensus on it. The crucial issue is to demonstrate, via sources rather than editor opinions, that it's a significant event. But with only a few hundred employees affected, it's not significant economically, as compared with laying off untold thousands at the car companies, which has contributed to leaving the state of Michigan economically devastated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the numbers of the layoffs and the fact that they are the largest layoffs in US law firm history definitely have to go in, and I think there's nothing non-neutral about that, especially considering how much of the article is dedicated to praising the firm. The sources for this (you can find links above) are AboveTheLaw.com, AmLaw Daily, Wall Street Journal Law Blog, and American Bar Association Journal. The things that I think we can still have a legitimate discussion about are Latham's drop in Vault rankings (#7->#17), and the term "Lathamed" being used widely in among lawyers to describe being laid off. I think the Vault data can be added very neutrally after the existing Vault rank at the top of the article. The term "lathamed" would be better to indicate the impact Latham's layoffs had on the legal industry. Or, would it be appropriate to have a "Latham in Popular Culture" section?Nycbl1y (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• (ECXN) My opinion. It happened, it's real, it's neutral, it's sourced, and it is a major event in the firm's history so it should be included. At the same time, an entire paragraph about this is WP:UNDUE, particularly in an article that gives scant mention to any other aspect of this large firm's history. This is a common problem, when someone wants to add a well-sourced but somewhat negative fact to a very brief article. Wikipedia has no deadline, it won't kill anyone to wait a few days or a week until we all agree and have more news sources. I think the "x reported that" and the arithmetic about how large it is are just excess verbiage. It may be the largest layoff in a single round in history, but other firms have imploded completely, or laid off more people on an absolute basis in several rounds, or in proportion to their size. The sizing down and demise of large firms in the 2001-2010 economy is a fairly new phenomenon, but it says more about law firm economics than any particular firm. In a full article about the subject I think this would get a single sentence, maybe two. So why don't we compromise and do that - one sentence that simply says the layoffs occurred, and maybe explains the context of why and how rather than wonking over how we know it or how it's the biggest. And then whoever wants to include it should as an act of goodwill find four other sentences to add about other unrelated parts of the firm's history so at least we have some substance to that part of the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, undue weight and arguably "coatracking". If this law firm is really all that important, surely they've done more in their history than just lay a few people off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a coatracking risk. There is information about significant clients and cases in the article already. That's the information about the other things they've done in their history than just lay people off.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are 21 lines of information about positive things the firm has done, and 19 lines about significant attorneys or alumni of the firm. How can 3-4 lines about layoffs be considered coatracking? We're talking <10% of the article. And again, it's not just "a few people" who got laid off, it's the largest number of people laid off by an industry that historically avoids layoffs, by a firm that a few months prior said they wouldn't be laying anybody off.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The imbalance is specifically in the section (or lack thereof) of the firm's history: founding, growth, milestones, etc. It's not that one coat is too many for the rack, it's that we also need some trousers, shirts, belts, and ties before we call it a wardrobe. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't put in a small mention of perhaps most significant news to come out of the law firm merely because the article hasn't been fully developed yet. If people are worried about that, then they should expand the article, not act to obstruct information which will be helpful to readers. We are forgetting that this article should provide information to readers.LedRush (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

[Moved my misplaced comment to the section below.]Nycbl1y (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

proposed Layoff text

It seems that there is no one left who thinks that there should be no mention of layoffs at all in the article. This makes sense as the layoffs were unprecented in size and for a top law firm. I propose the following text, which is from an earlier introduction which I edited to be something that I thought was more NPOV.

On February 27, 2009, several news sources reported mass layoffs at Latham, including 190 lawyers and 250 staff members. The Wall Street Journal affiliated blog, Legal Blog Watch described the layoffs as "the largest to date by a U.S.-based firm", and the AmLaw Daily stated that the layoffs were "the most dramatic cuts announced so far by an Am Law 100 firm.. In the subsequent Vault rankings, Latham dropped from seven to 17.

Any comments?LedRush (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Vault rankings aren't necessarily the result of the layoffs, so it might be misleading to have them here. I think it'd be more fair to the article to simply state the new Vault rankings after the 2009 Vault rankings that are already in the article without suggesting the cause for the change.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. That will beef up the other part of the article while slimming down the layoff section, alleviating concerns about undue weight.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention being ranked #17 by Vault is still pretty significant and should be in the article anyways. Most firms would kill to have that ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment above, the issue is the layoffs themselves, not the facts of who reported them and when. Therefore, the material should read something like: In early 2009 Latham laid off nearly 200 lawyers and 250 staff members,[cites] the largest layoff to date by an American law firm.[cites] I have qualms about citing changes to Vault rankings cited only to the Vault - who cares about them anyway? If we can find a third party source we could conceivably say something like: As a smaller firm Latham's ranking fell, both in prestige as measured by the Vault rankings,[cite] and in rankings among the largest and most profitable firms.[cite] - Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the reason to say "nearly 200" instead of 190.Nycbl1y (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Vault is treated as gospel among lawyers, pehaps even more so than the US News is for colleges and graduate schools. The article already has a section for honors, so I've included that info there. Regarding the change in language for who reported what, you are exactly correct.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, last time I blinked it was some other survey, maybe the Amlaw 100, Fortune this, Forbes that or something. Anyway, all of these things, including US News, take themselves far too seriously. Just simple formulas used to sell newspapers. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

At least for the last decade, law students and young lawyers have treated vault.com, and nothing else, as gospel. You are right to make fun of this practice, but it is true. The US News law school rankings are biased and produce some odd results, but they are good at measuring prestige. Ditto for vault. And because lawyers organize their lives around them, they are important within the legal community. It is sad, but it is true.LedRush (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe AmLaw deals with raw size of the firm (in terms of either revenue or profits per partner, don't care enough to check), while Vault deals with prestige. And I agree the awards are silly, but if this was an actor's page, would we include their MTV Viewer's Choice Awards?Nycbl1y (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to highlight the drop in ranking. Rather, "It ranked 7th in the 2009 Vault Prestige List, and 17th in 2010..." I don't really care about Vault, but that's because I don't work at a Vault 10 firm. But, either way, I think the only fair thing to do is list both the rankings, or neither.Nycbl1y (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where would the text go (i.e. which section)? (As an aside, there's a comment above from Wikidemon about the need for a history section - I think the text should go there, but obviously I'll need to rethink!)

I'm liking the WSJ Blog as a supplementary source, but in general blogs aren't good sources. Anything from the WSJ itself? I've not looked at the other sources, yet, so no comment there. (I've not looked at the WSJ blog, either, if I'm honest...!)

There's also a wee spot of copyediting to do ("unprecented" -> "unprecedented", e.g.) Normally I'd just do it and post here, but I'm about to get bogged down in real life...Comment struck: I can't read... TFOWR^propaganda 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 20:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."Nycbl1y (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but a newspaper article is still preferable to a newspaper editorial - I'd be happy with using this as a source, much less so about using this as a source (neither related to this topic, or, indeed, each other: both, however are BBC, with the latter being the official blog of a senior BBC journalist). TFOWR^propaganda 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That was in my post, not the proposed text.LedRush (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You, sir, are clearly unaware that I am an idiot ;-) Struck the comment, apologies. TFOWR^propaganda 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For a quick-and-dirty approach you can always create a "firm history" section, and just put that one fact in there. That's what I do when writing new stub and start-class articles, in hopes that other people will see the section and add their contributions. It is mostly relevant as an event in firm history, so that's where it would go logically. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a firm history section, though it needs much work. Also, I am horrible at citations.LedRush (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! It was you! Excellent, thanks for that. Looks good. I find "history" sections very useful - it's odd reading an article which seems to imply that an old firm has no history before this decade ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I meant to add this earlier: I tend to "cheat" with citations and use "reflinks" (available here) - that way you can just do something like "[http://www.example.com/123456789.html An example reference]", then run reflinks, and it'll automagically turn the raw citation into a fully-formatted, lovely citation. Hope that helps! TFOWR^propaganda 14:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That is extremely helpful.LedRush (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Now we're cooking with gas. So, as part of a history section (to be built), how about the following:

In early 2009 Latham laid off nearly 200 lawyers and 250 staff members in the largest layoff to date by an American law firm. The AmLaw Daily stated that the layoffs were "the most dramatic cuts announced so far by an Am Law 100 firm..

I believe the second sentence is necessary because it shows that scope of the layoffs was important for such a prestigous firm, and the AmLaw is an important reporter in the legal world.LedRush (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So with the new history section and the revelation that no one contests that some form of this language should be included in some form, can we put this in and let Wikipedia work like normal?LedRush (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say give it 24-48 hours for people to post comments. It's not like we're in the middle of OCI or something right now. Better to give everyone a chance to get their two cents in and then make changes instead of opening the page up to more warring.Nycbl1y (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if we are to use http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwide-layoff-watch-latham-cuts-440-190-associates-250-staff/ and http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/02/official-latham-to-cut-190-associates-250-staff-.html as a sources for the layoffs, we must also mention the severance packages. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If severance packages are relevant, then we need to discuss the fact that most of the laid-off lawyers accrued six figure student loan debt to get a large law firm job. Also, we would need to note that they lost out on their other offered biglaw jobs as a result. I don't really think either is relevant, but if you discuss severance packages, we need to make sure we're being fair by putting that into context. We want this article to be neither an advertisement nor an attack tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryX999 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have decent sources, I'm sure we could consider it. My point tho is that at least two of the main sources cited for the layoffs give significant weight to the severance packages. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a good source for what I wrote above about the Latham severance. Many legal consultants are saying that most of those laid off from large law firms will likely never get another large firm job again. The legal industry may be somewhat unique in that you only get one bite at the apple with large firm jobs, and if you lose it it's gone for good. Most people don't even get the one bite, given that maybe 10% of law school graduates are able to get large firm jobs in the first place. A layoff in this industry is really, really damaging for this reason. http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/nalp-2010-nalp-executive-director-james-leipold-talks-to-the-lost-generation/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryX999 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would make more sense in an article about lawyer layoffs? There's been quite a bit of press coverage about it, and I believe the NYTimes even ran an article on all the disenchanted lawyer blogs that have popped up (Bitter Lawyer, Notes from the Breadline, etc). With over 5k lawyers laid off just from big firms, recruitment down, new associates being deferred, stealth layoffs, and all the staff layoffs that go with that stuff, it's a fairly significant event.

ANALYSIS FROM NEUTRAL SOURCES

We need some neutral commentary on the reason for the layoffs and the effect of the layoffs. That way wiki will be including information both on the awards and the criticisms that Latham has received, making for a well balanced article.

I propose these two articles from a well respected publication that I have pasted below. In summary they say the reason for the layoffs was the failure of Latham management to predict demand for certain legal services and a poorly balanced mix of practice groups ie. number of corporate attorneys versus number of bankruptcy attorneys.

They also say the effect is a weakened firm that's losing good associates that has also to some extent lost its ability to recruit new high quality associates to replace them. For a provider of high end legal services, this is important information.

http://www.thelawyer.com/the-transatlantic-elite-2009-the-sweet-sixteen/1000698.article http://www.thelawyer.com/latham-salary-thaw-meets-with-hot-and-cold-reception/1003081.article

cut-and-paste removed per WP:COPYVIO - Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryX999 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 

1991 layoffs?

Not to add fuel to the pending layoff text fire, but Latham & Watkins also had a significant downsizing in August of 1991, when it laid of 43 associates (when the firm had 615 attorneys), as reported in the Los Angeles Times.[4] The layoffs were fairly significant in the eyes of the press at the time, as you can see from these (sorry, archived) stories from the Washington Post [5] [6], Chicago Tribune [7], and the Los Angeles Times [8] [9]. The December 2006 American Lawyer, archived on Latham & Watkins's own Web site, includes details of the 1991 layoffs as "controversial" but "needed." [10] Not sure everyone else's thoughts on this one, but given that they were proportionately about as large as the 2009 layoffs, I thought it might be worth adding. --Abidjan227 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's a new-and-shiny "history" section (much needed, well done whoever added it) I'd support adding the 1991 lay-offs in the history section. The LA Times and the Washington Post strike me as excellent sources. TFOWR^propaganda 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the significance of the layoffs, one of the sources describes them as the biggest layoffs in California law firm history, so that seems pretty significant. Also, the most recent, bigger layoffs add to the significance of the previous ones, the same way that we might not have your college track championship listed on its own, but it might become relevant if you then go on to win gold at the olympics.Nycbl1y (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to ignite another British vs. American English edit war, but

When I read the passage where L & W is described as "Legal counsel to bookrunners and arrangers Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Goldman Sachs International and Merrill Lynch International", I had to do a double-take. Yes my native dialect is American English, & yes "bookrunners" had a link to an article which explained that term, but those words convey to me that Deutsche Bank (& probably the other 2 companies) are crooked bookmakers. (For example, "arrangers" next to an unfamiliar word like "bookrunners" leads me inavoidably to conclude it means that they "fix" events to win bets.) Does anyone object to my changing the words describing them to "investment bankers"? (I assume that term is in common use in places with their own dialects of English.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Boorkrunners" is a very common term in both the legal and ibank communities in the US. However, I do not object to the change as it will probably make the article more accessible to non-legal and non-ibanker types.LedRush (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Bookrunner is going to throw off people not familiar with the term. I also thought it was related to bookmaking.Nycbl1y (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)