We are looking for confirmations/denials regarding the following rumors, feel free enlighten us in the comments:- Rumor #1: The Heavy Hitter may have just gone through a round of layoffs. (We have a hard time believing this one, as it appears that plaintiff's firms are doing just fine in this economy.)
- Rumor #2: The traffic ticket busting firms in town may be planning to finance a campaign against Chief Judge Ann Zimmerman when she comes up for election. Apparently, the mystery candidate being touted has plenty of money on his own, and is expected to be well-backed besides. This likely has to do with the Judge's rumored smack-down on ticket-busting firms.
- Rumor #3: According to an anonymous commenter, the KKBRF - GT merger is officially off. The same commenter adds that one KKBRF litigation partner and two transactional partners are leaving to start their own firm (these attorneys, apparently, were not part of KKBRF's recent bloodbath). Also, KKBRF's governmental affairs group may or may not be leaving in April, depending on which anonymous commenter you believe.
Let us know if you have any information.
UPDATE
Rumor#4: Jones Vargas has recently rescinded offers to its 2L summer associates. This has been confirmed. We are awaiting a response from Jones Vargas with details. Apparently, summers received a letter in late February indicating that, because of the poor economy, the firm was withdrawing their offers of employment. Nice of them to leave their summers with plenty of time to find alternative placements. Very classy, JV.
Thanks, tipsters!
Can anyone confirm the approximate one dozen layoffs (attorneys and staff) at Jones Vargas?
ReplyDeleteI understand that business is business, but this just seems harsh - especially because of the late notice. When times get tough, good firms keep their commitments
ReplyDeleteDear Jones Vargas,
ReplyDeleteThank you for not giving me a callback.
Sincerely,
2L with SA position still intact.
Oh good, I'm not the only one ho has been ceremoniously "screwed," as they say. B&P (an insurance law firm; I'll leave it up to you to figure out what firm this is) informed me I had a job to come back to after the bar, and that I wasn't to worry, for "you'll have a job to come back to." I had taken the summer off to study for the bar. Well, long story short, the bar ended, I called said firm expecting to hear "when can you come back?", only to hear instead that "we don't currently have any positions available. Good luck on your job search."
ReplyDeleteYes, these firms are classy indeed. Surely they knew the economy was in the toilet back in Spring and Summer 2008, so why would any of them give these law students offers/guarantees of employment (Whether written or verbal) only to tell them later "nah, just kidding"?
I think these disingenuous/"classy" firms could (and should) be sued on a detrimental reliance theory. It would be interesting if some of these summer associates were willing to go that route. However, I shant hold my breath.
That word should read "who," BTW.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Still looking for attorney work, even though I passed the job way back in October. To those who *were* lucky enough to land associate positions after their second summer, or even after the most recent two bar exams: I hope you thank your lucky stars, for you're in the vast minority.
ReplyDeletePassed the "bar." Darn fumbling fingers.
ReplyDeleteI too would like to see a law student trot out the old 'promissory estoppel' claim against these firms. It's of course a loser. Hard to overcome the "at will" employment setting, not to mention defenses like frustration of purpose or lack of concrete damages. Still, with the judges in this town, ALL IS POSSIBLE if you are a plaintiff. So I say go for it!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Heavy Hitter laid off 4 claim managers that were working under an unlicensed attorney, other than Kevin Rowe, who had to be dismissed due to the Supreme Court's recent opinion.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, in the summer of 2006Lerner had sign ups of over 250 a month, the number has dwindled down to under 150 due to the lack of professionalism.
Lack of concrete damages? Hardly. If one thinks one has a guaranteed job and stops looking for employment only to find he doesn't, how are there no damages? There are a lot of damages at stake, especially now that we're knee deep in a recession/depression, which wasn't so back in the spring.
ReplyDeleteSo there are damages, which continue to build the longer it takes for him to find comparable (remember, not just any) employment. I think it would be a gold mine.
As for the frustration of purpose doctrine, not a great argument. Although we weren't in a depression this past spring, the economy wasn't great either: Not by a long shot. Thus, it was foreseeable to the firm that they would most likely have no need for that person's services come the fall and that said person would have trouble seeking employment if his services were terminated. Thus, the defense fails.
ReplyDeleteIt would also fail for the reason that the defense, in general, is a loser. Not a loser as much as the doctrine of impossiblity, but a loser nonetheless.
Again, gold mine!
Snotnosed law students trying to convince themselves they have viable causes of action against prospective employers amuse me...but not as much as the fact that said snotnosed law students aren't even stopping to think about how bringing such claims in this town would preclude them from ever landing a job here.
ReplyDeleteListen, I'm a lawyer who still thinks these "snotnosed law students" have a viable cause of action. Whether or not they could get hired thereafter is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there exists a cause of action.
ReplyDelete8:27 - Really? Good for you. Let me know how that works out.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing ..............
ReplyDelete___________________
Smarry
For 3 Months Enjoy Free 28 Premium Movie Channels