Reed Smith, a prominent global law firm, has reportedly dismissed a number of its associates over a Zoom call, a move which appears to have come without any prior warning. These alleged dismissals, not officially confirmed by the firm due to their policy not to comment on personnel matters, were justified as a response to “billing errors.”
The tipsters cited by Above the Law argue these dismissals were sanctioned following a major document review project which concluded in October. The Zoom call used to notify the impacted attorneys allegedly emphasized that the decision was irrevocable and that no severance would be provided. The decision apparently bypassed the office’s managing partners, a move which left many confused and angry.
The cited billing errors were allegedly so severe as to justify the firing of associates across many offices. It is not unusual to see unusual billing activities in large discovery projects. For instance, a Dentons associate once allegedly billed 277 hours for reviewing 20 documents. However, it raises questions when attorneys across different offices independently make the same billing errors.
This line of argument becomes even more unsettling when considering that the fired associates were not approached regarding their billing in advance. In fact, they were encouraged by the partners to put in as many hours as they could to expedite the project. This indicates that these attorneys may have been merely following orders. It puts the onus, at least partially, on the management, challenging its apparent lack of responsibility-taking.
One might reason that if the firm management played a part in the problem, then it should also be provided the chance to address it and take responsibility. However, it appears that this opportunity was not given. This dismissal adds to the woes of modern law firms, where employee attrition is already a major problem.
Finally, even if we accept that the associates committed severe billing errors, the consequences seem lack proportionality. These dismissed associates had, by all accounts, previously received positive reviews, illustrating that the billing errors were perhaps not indicative of their overall work quality.