More law firm job cuts

Is it harder on the psyche of the legal community to hear of cuts and mergers from a large firm as opposed to a smaller one? That thought popped into my head after learning about the 22 staff cuts at Baker & Daniels’ offices in Indianapolis and Fort Wayne.

To read about 22 cuts by one, large firm as opposed to a couple of cuts at a few small firms invokes a stronger gut reaction from me. The same is true with law firm mergers. In my mind, it makes sense for two firms with three or four attorneys each to merge to strengthen their practices. But when two larger firms, (which I consider to be 75 or so attorneys or more) combine forces, I automatically think one or both of the firms was in trouble and had to merge to survive. I just assume a larger firm should be able to weather an economic storm better than a small firm, but I guess it all depends on how a firm operates.

In the end, job cuts are job cuts, no matter who makes the cut or how condensed or spread out those cuts are, but I just can’t help assuming the worst when I read or learn about larger firms making those cuts. Am I just being cynical or does anyone else feel the same way?