Musical Chairs: Jim Sandman Isn't as Greedy as You Thought
Remember James Sandman? Oh no, you don't? Well, surely you remember the Arnold & Porter partner's infamous essay, The High Price of Escalating Associate Salaries, which he wrote while president of the D.C. bar.
Jim Sandman's article, dishing out harsh criticism of law firm associate pay raises, did not endear him to ATL readers. In a near comments clusterf**k, he was condemned as the greediest of greedy Biglaw partners (along with other epithets not fit for printing here).
Well, maybe Sandman has gotten a bad rap. After all, he was public-spirited enough to serve as president of the D.C. bar. When we met him at this party, one of many charitable functions he attends, he didn't have horns growing out of his head.
And now we hear that he's leaving his lucrative partnership, to toil in the considerably less profitable precincts of the D.C. public school system. He's accepted a position as General Counsel for the District of Columbia Public Schools, and he'll also be a member of Chancellor Michelle Rhee's senior leadership team to the DC School Board.
Read the A&P memo announcing Sandman's departure, from firm chairman Thomas Milch, after the jump.
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP -- MEMORANDUM
From: Thomas Milch
To: Arnold & Porter LLP
Subject: Jim Sandman
With very mixed emotions, I am writing to let you know that Jim
has decided to accept a new position as General Counsel for the
District of Columbia Public Schools and a member of Chancellor
Michelle Rhee's senior leadership team to the DC School Board. He
will be the chief legal officer for a public school system that has
141 schools, 50,000 students, and 11,000 employees. Like many of the
country's largest urban school systems, DC's has had major problems
for many years; for example, 27 of the schools have been deemed
failing under the No Child Left Behind Act. DC's new Mayor, Adrian
Fenty, has made the DC public schools his top priority. In June, he
received authorization to take over the schools and immediately
brought in Chancellor Rhee, a charismatic and determined leader in
education, with a mandate to revolutionize the system. The
difficulties she faces are enormous, and many of them present hard
legal issues.
This is exactly the kind of major public interest challenge that
would capture the imagination of Jim Sandman, and just in talking with
him about it, I could feel his excitement about taking it on. I will
save for later trying to articulate in words his remarkable and
longstanding contributions to the firm, contributions that have become
embedded in who we are as an institution. For now, please join me in
wishing him the very best in his new position.
(54) Comments
FIRST!!!!!!!!
First
Good for him. More Big Law partners should consider moves like this.
Wasn't there a NY Big Law partner who left to become a social worker?
Many young attorneys would make this kind of leap if it weren't for crushing student debt. That debt is the reason behind the salaries. Plain and simple. Want lower saleries Mr. Biglaw Partners? Work to make law school cheaper!
Great. So he's got his, so much that he can go work for the School Board (and really, isn't there a better public service job in DC for the former Managing Partner of Arnold & Porter), but he begrudges associates the opportunity to pay off their law school debts.
DB, first magnitude.
check that, I guess he wasn't the managing partner. Point remains the same.
Remember why you went to law school: to make a difference.
lol.
Sweet, now that he's made his millions off the sweat of "overpaid" associates, he's retiring from law to do something fulfilling.
What a humanitarian
Like most do-gooders, he got his money and told others they should not get theirs.
He's probably just trying to soothe his conscience after years of screwing people over. Unfortunately, it won't get him out of the express line to hell.
What a joke, this guy made his money and now looking like some saint. Back in the day these partners got better mentoring/training and had a far easier road to partnership than associates do now. And they have enjoyed ridiculous increases in PPP since year 2000, and they have the audacity to complain about associate salaries going up? unbelieveable. PPP (and probably billing rates) have doubled since year 2000 at my firm and many others, and salaries haven't tracked that by a longshot. The assumption is that partners must make more and more ever year. So when a firm says they can't "afford" raising salaries it actually means, "we can't afford to pay more while making yet another X% increase in PPP this year".....bastards
DCPS needs good help... all greedy-associates-hype aside, this could be wonderful news for all District residents.
It's funny when associates complain about high PPP but then look down on lawyers who work at firms where PPP isn't high enough to put the firm in the V100.
I knew Jim when I was a summer associate at A&P in the late 1990s. He memorized every summer's name and law school and, to prove it, would stand up in front of the whole class and a room full of partners and associates and recite from memory. Anyone who he got wrong would personally get a six-pack of beer from Jim (or something similar if they didn't drink). He's a great guy and most certainly not a greedyf*cker.
ENTER SANDMAN
by Metallica (1991)
Say your prayers, little one
Don't forget, my son
To include everyone
Tuck you in, warm within
Keep you free from sin
Till the Sandman he comes
Sleep with one eye open
Gripping your pillow tight
Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
You're off to Never-Never Land
Something's wrong, shut the light
Heavy thoughts tonight
And they aren't of Snow White
Dreams of war, dreams of liars
Dreams of dragon's fire
And of things that will bite
Sleep with one eye open
Gripping your pillow tight
Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
You're off to Never-Never Land
Now I lay me down to sleep
Pray the Lord my soul to keep
If I die before I wake
Pray the Lord my soul to take
Hush little baby, don't say a word
And never mind that noise you heard
It's just the beast under your bed,
In your closet, in your head
Exit light
Enter night
Grain of sand
Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
You're off to Never-Never Land
5:12 - that is funny - hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
you know what else is funny? Your mom
I'm looking forward to his essay arguing that school systems are spending too much to educate the children.
As someone who summered at A&P a few years ago (I ended up picking a firm in a different city for reasons unrelated to A&P), I can say that Jim Sandman is a gentle, humble, very cool person, who genuinely cares about associates and their general happiness with firm life. He radiates kindness toward others. Anyone who has met him knows this. He is the only managing partner (which he was when I was there) that I have ever heard of that really took the time to get to know everyone in the summer class. He would drop by offices, leave notes if people weren't there, went barefoot in his office, hosted luau-themed parties. Seriously, the guy was cool.
I read the article he wrote, and I think his real message is one of concern for how the recent raises (which as a junior associate I'm a fan of!) will increase minimum billables and decrease associate happiness. You may disagree with his analysis/predictions, but you can't use the article (with any credibility) to impugn his motives or his character. I would bet that most of the vitriolic comments about him and his article on this board are written by people who (a) just are generally bitter about law firm life, and (b) didn't bother to read the article through to the end (or at all).
Read the article to the end, not bitter about firm life, guy is still a jerk.
Next.
As a follow-up to my 5:35 comment, I would say beward to law students looking to go to A&P. The Sandman was one of the driving forces behind A&P near-legendary "work-life balance" culture. Without him, I'd lay odds that the firm will go down the tubes and be true bloodsucking sweatshop very soon.
Obvious Jim Sandman Troll.
"went barefoot in his office"
Gross!
Ms Featherbottom at 4:50: Amen.
"As a summer at that firm, I was amazed at how nice the partners were to me! I won the Brooklyn Bridge at a summer poker event for only $15!"
And to some degree Sandman may have been correct in his predictions. With the raises have come even greater demands on us as associates in terms of hours.
Too many bitter mutha f*in lawyers here who are spending time reading this blog and posting all the while charging a client for it. Bitter idiots. I love when associates believe they "deserve" or feel they are "entitled" to a larger share of what the partners make. Got news for you asswipe, you're not a partner! Until you become one, quit complaining. You get over paid for what you do anyway.
I just read his ridiculous rant on associate raises, and it occurred to me you could replace virtually every instance of the term "associate salaries" with "partner profits" and the argument, such as it is, would be equally valid (arguably more so, given that partner profits at big firms have increased astronomically in the last 20 years - by a far greater margin than increases in associate salary over the same period).
@6:17 - I think the point is that it is the height of hypocrisy for a partner to complain about the social ills - and harm to clients - that results from ASSOCIATES receiving higher salaries, while ignoring the same or similar "harms" that result from PARTNERS receiving so much moola.
@6:22 - well in that case, you're right. Fuck that guy!
Love,
6:17
Jim Sandman is a credit to the legal profession. He was a terrific leader of Arnold & Porter and he'll do a great job in his new role. He's one of the great visionaries of legal life in DC.
I think that until you can make the big bucks as a senior partner and then be willing to give it away for a better cause, then you don't have standing to comment.
Since most of these angry posts are from associates, I dare you to do the same thing when your time comes. And if you don't, you are are nothing more than a greedy partner bastard which you so despise. And if you eventually do, you have now become a hypocrite because you are just like Jim, and have just criticized him for doing so.
Good luck with your self-induced double edged sword.
Doesn't A&P pay under market in DC? At least, I heard bonuses are mini...
If you are an associate complaining because a partner says you are overpaid you should be shot. You are not worth the money paid until you start bringing business in the door. I am overpaid and enjoy it, but I also see where the partners and general counsel are coming from.
Anyone can stay up all night writing a memo or performing due diligence. Lets be honest, as a First Year Associate most of our work was useless. You wonder why such a small percentage of us make partner? Cause the vast percentage of us are expenses and not assets to our firms.
You want to make what you are worth? Go to a job where you are paid on commission, or to a small firm where your salary sucks, but you get to take home a large cut of the business you bring in.
Lets face it we are overpaid. Enjoy it. Don't cry foul, cause someone in the know says so.
Biglaw associates are overpaid. But when law school starts getting cheaper, I'll agitate for lower salaries. Until then, we have to ask for what the market will bear, and what will pay our bills.
sandman is a very decent guy. i think his remarks in the washington lawyer were wrongly vilified because they only expressed his views on associate compensation (in the article everyone cites), which decries large assocaite salaries because of the negative impact on the lives of associates (and what is wrong with that?). what the criticism misses is the bulk of his commentary on the legal profession as a whole in the entirety of his writing, which also decries the profit-minded direction of the profession as a whole. if sandman's comments are read as part of a larger whole, his views are much closer to those of the millennial generation than his own, and reflect, i think, an enlightened view of the values lawyers should strive to achieve, including balanced lives and professional satisfaction. please continue to challenge law firm leaders to create institutions that you want to work at, but continuing to go after sandman is not called for given sandman's actions and exhortations.
8:12 What a bitter, ill-reasoned construct you have there.
I think you are a little misguided about what a hypocrite is. Changing your mind at a later time does not make one a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is saying one thing WHILE doing or believing another.
It is also apparently a death metal band from Sweden, but I digress. Your post was stupid.
4:46 - When you mock Sandman for taking a job as general counsel for the school district (not a prestigious enough gov't/nonprofit position), you highlight a difference between his priority system and your own that makes it clear just how unable you would be to understand what he was saying about associate compensation.
As a few other comments have said, Sandman is well known as a great lawyer in DC who has done a remarkable job doing good guy work while a partner at a major law firm. Personally, he's someone I'd rather emulate than trash on a blog.
The Sandman apologists protest a bit too much, and too aggressively.
I don't doubt he's a decent man, but I agree with the early comment that he's a self-proclaimed do-gooder who, having made his money as a BigLaw partner by leveraging associate time, seeks to limit the ability of this generation to do the same.
Like many do-gooders, he is taking a stance that ignores the fact that we live in a capitalist democracy, where people who want to work more and harder are free to do so. No one is making me work the hours I work.
So Sandman -- shut up and step aside. It's my time now.
Reading the "criticisms" of Sandman, it's apparent that abovethelaw.com has a readership that's populated with small-minded people lacking self-esteem. I hope it's not indicative of Biglaw as a whole.
That said, it was gratifying to read the defenses of Sandman -- of course, only in this idiotic environment would someone going to work for the DC public schoold need defending.
Best of luck to James Sandman in his new endeavor!
I doubt the guy's a bad person and personal attacks are not warranted. However, making him out to be a giant do-gooder/humanitarian is equally ridiculous. He's been making MILLIONS per year for the past decade and is now stepping down to do something more fullfilling.
He should be credited for his choice, but not made a saint for it. If I had 10 million in the bank, was approaching retirement, wanted to spend more time with my family, I'd probably take a job like this too. Hell, we should all be so lucky.
Rupert Pupkin - that's a horrible, horrible name. You must have had an emotionally draining childhood.
"Doesn't A&P pay under market in DC? At least, I heard bonuses are mini..."
No.
I have had it with the MUTHERFUCKING PARTNERS and their MUTHERFUCKING SALARY COMPLAINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have had it with these MUTHERFUCKING PARTNERS and their MUTHERFUCKING SALARY COMPLAINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I, admittedly, haven't read his article since it came out. As I recall, he didn't just point out that associate salaries will have a negative impact on associates in the long run - I don't think anybody would contest that. I remember his article as having a "remember why you went to law school" feel to it, which is really frigging irritating coming from a partner at a large law firm which makes its money from defending large corporations.
I'm with 8:31 on this one. With respect to his taking the GC job, I think it's great, but it also grates to see somebody get a standing O for devoting the last fraction of his career to public service. Lots of lawyers do that their entire careers. In fact, he probably took the GC job from some long-suffering civil servant.
most of the posters on this thread should kill themselves
I agree with 10:21 and 8:12
His commentary is right on the mark. Who says associates have an entitlement to absurdly astronomical salaries to pay off their loans? Who made them go in to law school/law? No one. One goes into knowing (or one should) what the economic score is, including the fact that the loans may be high and few get the top dollars.
I see/saw nothing wrong with his commentary, and good for him for saying it (which was my reaction when it came out (I'm a DC Bar member).
After 5 yrs. in private practice, 2 with non profits, and 20 in the federal govt., everything he says is borne out by what I see and hear.
Good for him for shifting gears, I don't begrudge him anything.
Ms. Featherbottom, that's correct. It was so draining that I can't let go of my fantasy that I'm a professional comedian.
8:31 AM -- who made him out to be a saint? That's a straw man argument, whether employed by you or the (different) small-minded idiots whom I was talking about. Sandman hasn't made himself out to be a saint; nor has the Chairman of A&P. There's obviously a selfish component to most altruism, especially if it's in the public eye. Mother Theresa acknowledged that in recently published letters, and I'm sure Sandman would too if someone asked him. But the half-wits on here are just bitching about salaries this, bonus that.
By the way, my personal view on compensation is "it's a market, deal with it", so I'm not sure whether I agree with Sandman's original article at all. But the personal attacks are just ridiculous and stupid, and small minded.
Rupert:
Who made him out to be a saint? How about the 35 Sandman appologist/supporters who posted previously.
I agree that personal attacks ridiculous. I'm indifferent towards the man personally. I just don't think a BIGLAW millionaire partner who goes into public service on the cusp of retirment should be so loudly applauded.
1202 - you're an idiot. The only reason this is news is because of the uproar over the article. It's an interesting counterpoint. So are the testimonials from people who, you know, ACTUALLY KNOW THE GUY. So unless you have something contructive to say for yourself, I suggest you STFU.
No, he should be loudly applauded for everything positive he has already done for A&P and the profession generally. There seems to be a false dichotomy set up by most of the commenters. Either Sandman is Mother Theresa or he's Gordon Gekko. Biglaw partners can, and Sandman did, make positive contributions to the practice while raking in millions.
More partners (and associates) should follow this example:
1. Work at big firm to pay off law school debt (and get good legal training/mentoring and to pad your resume).
2. Once debt is paid, earn enough to pay a sizable downpayment on a decent house (leaving only small monthly payments for the future) and have a modest nest egg in the bank.
3. Leave firm life and take a modest salary doing public interest or public service work - be happy and spend time with your family now that firm hours are behind you.
[5. Tell your kids to become investment bankers as they make way more money and can have a fortune even if they follow the above plan!]
By the way - to achieve this within a few years (very possible outside of NYC) you just have to live reasonably and not go spending like Imelda Marcos every weekend.
The partners on this board make me sick - saying that "we don't know what it's like till we try giving up high salaries"
Its like a billionaire complaining to a poor person that they don't know what its like to only have millions of dollars after a stock market crash.
How pathetic - you guys don't know what its like to come out of law school with $150K in debt!
As to the losers who say that we knew what we were getting into (debt) by going to law school - some of us went to law school because we actually like the law and want to be lawyers, not for purely economic reasons. Just cos we weren't all born into wealth doesnt mean we should be denied a good legal education - especially if we are smarter than the whiny rich kids in law school who only got there cos they have been privately tutored all their lives!