Yeah, I like shadow statistics but I get enough flak already for just using government numbers. Quoting them would just add another whole bunch of fuel to the fire. Plus, they've got an agenda too (showing how bad the government's numbers are). I suspect the real number is somewhere between the U6 and Shadow's numbers.

Tell us how you really feel!

I realized this morning that this show is a spiritual heir to Gossip Girl (or maybe Melrose Place) not Grey\'s Anatomy or Boston Legal. Is it any better in that light?

Je crois pas.

Easy part first - it\'s astonishing (at least to us) how big some firms have gotten. It wasn\'t that long ago that the largest firms had fewer than 1000 lawyers, and not long before that they capped out in the low hundreds. The growth is astonishing.

Six of CC\'s layoffs were in London in 2009. That couldn\'t have been handled better? Three were in NY (and that doesn\'t include the one reported on Dec 31, 2008.

The other was in Amsterdam. So yes we are astonished that Clifford Chance couldn\'t have done it all in fewer than 10 different events.

Aside from the fact that CC isn\'t a good example ofyour thesis, we also disagree on the idea. Most multinational firms do take an overall global view when deciding to reduce headcounts. If firms are going to be multinational like their clients they should still do a decent job of acting like an integrated entity. But firms don\'t work that way as local offices are highly autonomous Which is how one gets astonished by so many discrete announcements.

I was curious so I looked a little further. He admitted it on his character & fitness application (search for Question number 53 on page 5)
http://www.iardc.org/08CH0032HB.html
so the school probably heard about it from that. But they definitely didn't know about it when he was accused of plagiarizing.

For the most part, our audience knows the difference between Clifford Chance and Faegre & Benson. It is astonishing that one firm, which prides itself on being a single, fully integrated law firm around the world, had 10 separate rounds of layoffs - astonishing both because it took so many discrete actions and because it\'s so big and far-reaching.

If any firm has a claim for being the whipping boy, though, it\'s Cadwalader. We\'ve long held them out as the catalyst of this now 2-year run of layoffs.

You're always welcome to send us confidential information at tips (at) lawshucks (dot) com and we'll verify and protect your identity.

You\'re absolutely right. Not sure what we were thinking - we must have had Laster on the brain from this recent post http://lawshucks.com/2009/12/weil-gotshal-makes-c...

We wrote about Chandler a while ago, too, so it\'s not like we don\'t know the difference: http://lawshucks.com/2009/07/biglaw-on-the-delawa...

Thanks for the correction

It's actually good for her, bad for her readers. I'll post an update on that soon.

Ah, thanks. They probably worked together at WSGR around 98-99 (after O'Melveny, before RealNames for Arrington). Barnes switched in April 2004.

Well, this is a pretty old story. Since the time we wrote this, Intuit went and bought Mint, much to the chagrin of a lot of people. Supposedly they'll be keeping mint free, though.