Tuning out layoff news?

February 27, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
If you read any publication geared toward the legal community, you’ve undoubtedly encountered numerous news stories about law firm layoffs. It’s a topic we’ve covered both in IL and here in the blog and one that should be talked about. The economy is hitting law firms and offices harder now than it has in years, and that’s news.

But does there come a point when you read or hear the same type of news over and over again to the extent that you begin to tune it out?

I get a daily e-mail from the National Law Journal and today’s publication had six stories from around the country about law firm layoffs, suits related to law firm layoffs or closings, and what to do if you’ve been laid off. There was one news story related to a firm hiring attorneys, but that was buried at the bottom and easy to miss.

This may be cynical of me, but these days, I’m more shocked when I don’t see a story about a firm cutting attorneys or staff. Cutbacks have been in the news for months and it’s becoming the norm.

The same goes for the journalism/publishing business. Newspapers are filing for bankruptcy left and right and the surprise I felt when I read that the Christian Science Monitor was switching from its print publication to online only to save money, or that Detroit newspapers would cut back on home delivery, well, the shock is no longer there as I read about another publication announcing layoffs and cutbacks.

As an attorney, paralegal, or staffer, how are you processing this constant barrage of news stories about cuts? Does it still worry you and surprise you to see a story, or has it become such part of everyday life now it doesn’t make you bat an eyelash?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT