Correction: Milbank Didn’t Fire All Its Staff Attorneys
On Tuesday, we wrote about staff attorney layoffs at Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy. As a commenter on our post noted, yesterday the firm sent around an email disputing our account:
From: David R. Gelfand
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:20 PM
To: #Litigation Non Partner Attorneys US; #Litigation Partners US
Cc: Sikora, Michael; Green, Valerie
Subject: Discovery Attorney ProgramSeveral of you have asked about rumors that we have disbanded our Discovery Attorney Program. The rumors are absolutely not true.
If you need assistance from our Discovery Attorneys, please contact [xxxx].
Thanks.
David
We would have appreciated it if Milbank had responded to the multiple inquiries we made of them prior to running the post, instead of responding indirectly and after-the-fact. But it’s not the first time we’ve seen passive-aggressive behavior on the part of a law firm.
(We often reach out to law firms about rumors we hear — and we often kill stories when firms explain how and why they’re inaccurate. This happens almost every day around here. But if firms don’t avail themselves of the opportunity to comment on a reasonably credible rumor, then we view it as fair game.)
Anyway, we ran David Gelfand’s email by our original source, who responded:
“Milbank let go of all of the permanent discovery attorneys except for two. They kept on temporary discovery attorneys — those who are working through staffing agencies and not on Milbank’s payroll.”“Notice in Milbank’s response [how they say] they did not dissolve the Discovery Attorney Program. That’s very different from saying that they did not fire all or nearly all of the attorneys in that program.”
Our earlier report, in stating that all the permanent discovery attorneys were laid off, was erroneous, since two were spared. We regret the error (and have appended a correction to the original post).
Could this latest report be erroneous as well? Quite possibly; we’re honest about our fallibility. But we once again reached out to Milbank, yesterday and today, and neither David Gelfand nor a firm spokesperson responded to our inquiries.
If you have knowledge of what’s really going on over there, feel free to drop us a line. Thanks.
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Milbank Cans Staff Attorneys
(47) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
First
by First Again
This is going to sound terribly elitist, bu who the hell cares?
When the time is hard, the firm has no choice but to slim down. I don't think we can blame Milbank.
It's not surprising that when staff attorneys get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them.
MILBANK TO TTT. Milbank will join the ranks of CWT, Dechert and the other TTT's. Good luck recruiting top law students in 2-3 years...
hey 3:49
You should care because you are probably next on the chopping block.
I, like the pope, am honest about my infallibility.
What is next? Are we going to start caring about paralegals getting the can?
Nice Schadenfreude pour moi as a girl who dumped me at Harvard works there now...
though not quite die grosse Freude like the fact her new chef boyfriend once offered to fellate me in the library.
Milbank to shitty 80s firm!
Oh come on, Lat. You really can't get uppity about a firm deciding not to respond to a tabloid's sourceless rumor. That's called not dignifying your request with a response, not passive-agression. You have to recognize that, entertaining as ATL may be, it's a gossip rag and not much more. No one is obligated to respond to your request for confirmation of rumors that draw their facts from business decisions.
"We would have appreciated it if Milbank had responded to the multiple inquiries we made of them prior to running the post, instead of responding indirectly and after-the-fact. But it's not the first time we've seen passive-aggressive behavior on the part of a law firm."
Lat, c'mon, I don't think the firm was responding to you at all, for the reason that 4:46 cites. You're providing an entertaining and useful blog for associates and others interested in biglaw. ATL hasn't become a source that requires responses from law firms, such that if they fail to respond they can be deemed "passive-aggressive." When you talk like this, you sound self-aggrandizing. Realize both what you are and what you aren't - and try some modesty.
Um, 4:46 and 4:55, ATL is now known, referenced, and used by firm decision-makers. Quinn uses this tool to its advantage, and my own firm atty development folks read this site every day as part of their jobs.
So while ATL may be a "gossip rag," it's how summer and lateral candidates get information about their employment options. Whether individual firms decide to fight this medium or use it to their advantage is their decision.
Agree with 4:46 and 4:55. Lat, you sound like a twat in this post.
Agree with 4:46 and 4:55. Lat, you sound like a twat in this post.
BRING BACK SEN!!!!
I can only find 3 or 4 discovery attorneys missing from the directory. Almost all of those I've worked with on a case in November are still here (which is like 8 of them). I have no idea if any of them are technically temps, but they've been here longer than me. I think this source might be full of crap.
It's so interesting how when it's a staff attorney who gets the ax, the response is "who the hell cares." But when associates get bonuses that fall short of expectations by 5k, or even worse, associates themselves get axed, then the world is suddenly coming to an end.
5:14 is a fresh MC- Lat, SEN, this new site, and staff attorneys are all twats.
5:14 - no one in their right mind would want to bring back SEN, she was an epic failure on this site. Her firing was good riddance.
I've gotta agree with 4:46, 4:55, 5:14 on this one.
Dear Diary:
They took the last of the discovery attorneys last night. I fear I may be next. I am making plans to flee, or, alternatively, direct them to that group of underperforming mid-level douches down the hall.
5:40. A lot of that is trolling by people pretending to be elitist assholes. Many of them are law students, nonlawyers etc.
Lat's doing a good job on this. Don't let the elitest scum intimidate you into not reporting on this.
This blog is read by most lawyers at big firms, and is definitely read by the decisionmakers at top firms. So they should answer your questions.
If staff attorneys are being laid off it is a sign of major economic problems because law firms view doc review as a MAJOR profit center.
Agree. Remember the canary in the coal mine? Well, the staff attorneys are your canaries. If I was an incoming 1st year at Milbank, I would be shitting in my pants. Do you think Milbank's clients are going to allow a bunch of $200K a year 1st and 2nd associates sit around and bill outrageous fees for mere document review? I think not.
Skadden's DC office has a big staff attorney meeting scheduled for next week. The rumors suggest that it will be to offer increased benefits and to make a no-layoff guarantee.
Thank god I'm not a staff attorney!
I am a contract attorney who currently works at a V5 firm. I have much more job security than a Milbank, CWT, or other TTT "staff attorney." While my actual work location may change (I've worked at 6 firms since I passed NY's bar in 2005), my placement agency has ensured that I am constantly employed (no long "gaps" between job situses). Its good, steady work (3 years now) and, when I work more than 40 hrs/week, I earn time & 1/2 (pulled in over 90k last year).
Dear 12:32 a.m.:
Are you kidding?
Sincerely,
Perplexed
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
the comments (e.g., 12:32) imply that there are differences b/w "staff attorneys" and "contract attorneys." aside from associates and partners, my firm also hires "discovery attorneys" (full-time, non-partner track attorneys-- get the same benefits (but lower pay) than partner-track associates). is anyone aware of the differences, if any, b/w staff attorneys, contract attorneys, and discovery attorneys?
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
wow, this is nonsense. So what if they put first years on doc review -- the higher hourly rate won't simply be passed to the client for the same work. Rather, it will be adjusted to what the client deems appropriate. What billing partner actually passes ALL the hours of a 1st year on?!
12:48:
T1 = Partners / Counsels / Associates
T2 = Staff Attorneys (aka "Discovery Attorneys")
T3 = Receptionists / HR Staff / Minor League Umpires
T4 = Janitorial Staff / Crack Whores / Contract Attorneys
Why is there so much hate against contract attorneys?
Most contract attorneys are very smart, very capable attorneys. Many excelled at top law schools and chose contract work for the lifestyle. I graduated with honors and was elected an editor of my school's law review. Its a bad day on ATL when biglaw associates knock on us contract attorneys who ensure that the same associates are sheltered from the "mundane" discovery work that we do very efficiently and very well so that you high-and-mighty associates don't have to.
Get a life!!!
LAT:
Please weigh in on this contract attorney debate/nonsense. After you clerked for Judge O'Scannlain, didn't you work for a while as a contract attorney for Wachtell?
Thanks,
DC Contract Attorney
You can shit on contract attorneys all you want, but they still provide better value in a slow economy. Clients will balk at high billing rates in this tight market.
I can't believe people are making such an elitist distinction. These are people you went to law school with for god's sake. Have a little sympathy. This is the kind of crap that makes me disdain my profession. That and the fact that I'm still at work.
1:36: The ones that degrade their fellow lawyers are also the ones that criticize firms for withholding bonuses or laying off associates. If you people don't care about each other, why the hell should firms care about you?
"T1 = Partners / Counsels / Associates
T2 = Staff Attorneys (aka "Discovery Attorneys")
T3 = Receptionists / HR Staff / Minor League Umpires
T4 = Janitorial Staff / Crack Whores / Contract Attorneys"
Would you really put crack whores on the same level as contract attys?
So, what makes your original source so reliable that you accept as fact that all but two discovery attorneys were dismissed? And how many were there before all but two were dismissed? Just because some firm wounded your pride by not responding to your precious little threats of rumor mongering doesn't mean that everything you here about them is true, even if from your anonymous e-mail "sources."
"Just because some firm wounded your pride by not responding to your precious little threats of rumor mongering doesn't mean that everything you hear about them is true, even if from your anonymous e-mail 'sources.'"
You hit the nail on the head, 10:21. No legitimate news source gets offended when it gets blown off after asking for confirmation of sourceless rumors. I mean, look at it from the firm perspective. If someone like Lat gets strong traction every time he shoves an "I heard you guys did X, is it true?" in the firm's face, it gives him and others a *lot* of power. When firms feel obligated to respond, under threat that the rumor will be published, Lat can toss them any old bullshit speculation he can come up with and force disclosure of more details than firms want/need to give out. That's why real journalists usually approach public entities and figures with credible sources rather than rumors - it's the only thing worth responding to.
2:14 pm: You make a very good point. But please, let's stick to the topic of the relevant topic-- crack whores and staff attorneys. I think that its a sorry day on ATL when someone would degrade the crack whore profession by linking these fine men and women with contract attorneys.
I hope you kiddies are aware that even if "associates" are higher on the pedigree than "contract attorneys," you're all equally useless and retarded in the grand scheme of things.
These comments are kind of amusing. It's like watching a homeless man criticizing another homeless man.
10:22 - you're about a useful as the 'p' in 'receipt.'
Word on the street is that the MWE bankruptcy partner (Mr. McFrenchFry) got no-offered after applying to be a Milbank staff atty.
6:36 A little objectivity, please. You (all) dismiss SEN, gush over Kash, treating her like your cyber-sex object, and rant over trivialities such as font size. The anonymity of comments shouldn't preclude objective thought and common civility.
Greenberg Traurig NY recently fired a bunch of secretaries and paralegals.
I recently fired my gardener.
Now all we need is some aliens to come down and take over the earth
1:16 - You are probably just being a troll, but Lat was not a contract attorney at Wachtell. He was a partnership-track associate. His name was on the letterhead.
No disrespect to contract attorneys, but Lat's resume -- Harvard College, Yale Law School, Yale Law Journal, Ninth Circuit clerkship -- is not a typical contract-attorney resume.
-- a former WLRK colleague