Harrison explains that certain law firms have never laid off associates, such as Cravath or Sullivan & Cromwell.
Other firms, such as Shearman & Sterling, have suffered reputational harm and their brands have suffered in the eyes of attorneys after laying off associates.
Laying off associates can lead to a loss of reputation and a shift from being a safe, unassailable firm to a place where all bets are off.
Firms that have laid off associates may still be reputable, but their reputation can suffer in the eyes of others.
Transcript
Transcript:
Yes, they absolutely do. So there's certain firms like have never really done that. So you certainly have never heard of Cravath or Sullivan & Cromwell. Sullivan & Cromwell led off staff, but not associates. You've never heard of Patel, Simpson Thatcher or Davis Polk, a firm that used to be kind of part of that group that was Shearman & Sterling.
In 2001, they led off a bunch of people and Sherman & Sterling is a great firm, but they suffered huge reputational harm and people still remember it. Because you took this firm that was almost unassailable and suddenly was laying people off and in terms of this great reputation and did that.
So firms do suffer a lot of reputational harm when they do it. It becomes from the kind of the pinnacle where you go and you're gonna be safe, to a place where all bets are off. I'm not saying that I think any differently of that firm, but it's just what happened in terms of its reputation. We're talking about 20 plus years ago this happened.
And so yes, they do suffer a lot of problems and then their brands suffer in the eyes of attorneys.
