What To Do About the First-Year Class of 2020?
Hugh A. Simons argues that the incoming first-year associate class for the fall of 2020 should be deferred. He offers historical perspectives from the Great Recession and guidance on when and how to implement these decisions.
April 16, 2020 at 03:01 PM
10 minute read
Yet more decisions between bad and worse are upon us. The class of 2020 is due to start arriving in less than six months. There's not going to be enough work for them; they should be deferred. But what should the new start date be? Should firms pay some kind of stipend? When and how should the changes be announced?
New start date
One factor influencing start dates is bar exam timing. New York called off its July exam and Massachusetts, Connecticut and Hawaii have already followed. In response, The National Conference of Bar Examiners has said it will offer exams on September 9 and 10 and also on September 30 and Oct. 1. With backup dates now established, more states are expected to cancel their July sittings.
To allow the new associates time to recover from the exams, and yet not have them arrive as the holidays hit, deferring them to January 2021 is an option. There's precedent for January starts from the class of 2009. Figure 1 summarizes the start dates offered by the 42 of the 50 most profitable firms on the 2009 Am Law 100 for which information was reported in the law blog world.
As the figure shows, it was a mix with many firms offering multiple starts. Only six firms stuck with just September or October starts; a further five offered November as an option, and yet five more offered only November. In all, twenty-eight of the forty-four firms offered 2010 start dates, of which nineteen offered only starts in 2010.
If not a success, the deferrals were at least considered to have been the lesser of two evils. Indeed, many firms used deferrals again with the class of 2010. Students didn't love it but delays were so widespread firms weren't especially punished. Opprobrium was reserved for those who rescinded offers.
However, given the outlook for economic activity, having the class of 2020 arrive in early 2021 would probably be to have them join too soon. Economic forecasting is to be approached with great humility at a time like this, but, if things transpired as Goldman Sachs projected in their latest revision, then in Q1 of 2021 the level of U.S. economic activity would be the same as that of early 2018, i.e. the level of two years ago; it is not until late 2021 that the economy is projected to regain its late 2019 levels.
Infographic credit: Tim Schafer
Given this difference, nothing can be read into how quickly firms react. Further, firms who now announce deferrals of arriving associates can't be considered the especially-financially-pressured movers. Those who could be viewed as akin to the first movers in 2008 (Thelen, etc.) are among those who made significant moves in the last 2-3 weeks. There's a long list of such firms that includes Baker Donelson, Brown Rudnick, Cadwalader, Curtis, Loeb & Loeb; Norton Rose Fulbright, Reed Smith, and Womble Bond Dickinson.
The implication? There's no abnormal reputational risk in announcing deferrals now. It would be well received by current associates who'll recognize it avoids increasing the competition for what work is available.
Closing thought
It's tempting for firms to delay announcing decisions about the arrival of the class of 2020 as we await greater clarity. However, we are already past the time in 2009 by which most firms had announced. There's also an important benefit to incoming associates from moving soon: delay weakens their prospects of securing prestigious paid public interest work and entry into elite LL.M. programs.
Hugh A. Simons is formerly a senior partner and executive committee member at The Boston Consulting Group and chief operating officer and policy committee member at Ropes & Gray. Early retired, he now researches and writes about the business side of law firms and does some consulting for old friends. He welcomes reader reactions at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllQuinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
Law Firms Mentioned
- McDermott Will & Emery
- Ropes Gray
- Hogan Lovells
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- Nixon Peabody
- Loeb & Loeb
- White & Case
- Latham & Watkins
- Brown Rudnick LLP
- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
- O'Melveny & Myers
- Clifford Chance
- Morrison & Foerster LLP
- Sidley Austin
- Venable
- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
- Reed Smith
- Norton Rose Fulbright
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
- Womble Bond Dickinson
- Winston & Strawn LLP
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250