CohnReznick reviews

The private equity transaction marked a sharp and poorly handled turning point. There was no proactive internal communication until the deal appeared in the press, followed by requests not to speak externally and a token financial gesture that did little to address legitimate employee concerns. The operational impact of the new ownership structure was felt almost immediately. One of the most disruptive changes was the rapid expansion of a centralized resource management function that required staff to forecast billable hours far into the future, even when there was clearly insufficient work in the pipeline. This created a persistent disconnect where employees were expected to project utilization that leadership openly acknowledged did not exist. Large-scale layoffs occurred at the end of 2024, accompanied by assurances that no further reductions were planned. The same message was repeated almost word for word in 2025, followed by another round. During this period, leadership messaging emphasized the need to “get scrappy” while simultaneously conceding that billable opportunities were limited, leaving staff accountable for conditions outside their control. At the same time, many Partners appeared increasingly disengaged from business development. Responsibilities that were once shared, such as shaping pursuits and contributing meaningfully to RFP strategy, were pushed downward. Proposal responses became generic and repetitive, relying on past reputation rather than differentiated thinking or active capture efforts. Losses were rarely examined in any structured way. There were no post-mortems, no competitive reviews, and no systematic learning from failed bids. Compensation reflected these struggles. Raises and bonuses effectively disappeared in 2025, which might have been understandable in isolation, but felt particularly demoralizing given the utilization pressure and growing expectations around unpaid internal work. The culture also shifted noticeably. Political behavior increased, dissent was discouraged, and people who raised questions or challenged decisions were often sidelined. What had once felt collaborative began to feel transactional and risk-averse. The firm promotes anonymous upward feedback, but recent experiences suggest those safeguards may not be as robust as advertised. When employees believe that critical feedback can be traced back to them and carry consequences, it creates a chilling effect and undermines trust in leadership and governance. In at least one instance, an employment decision closely followed participation in an internal feedback process that was represented as anonymous. Whether intentional or not, situations like this raise serious questions about confidentiality, retaliation protections, and the firm’s commitment to psychological safety. Finally, while the firm supports certifications financially, it does not realistically support them with time. Studying, earning credentials, completing CPEs, and contributing to business development are all treated as nonbillable, yet utilization expectations remain extremely high. The result is an unsustainable workload that pushes professional development almost entirely into personal time.

Upper management is a total mess