Dewey Stay or Dewey Go? D&L Decamps from Hartford, Austin, Jacksonville
The rumors that we alluded to earlier are true: Dewey & LeBoeuf is shuttering three offices. Here is the firm's official statement on the office closings:
As part of its global strategy to expand the firm's resources in major capital markets throughout the world, Dewey & LeBoeuf will be closing its offices in Jacksonville, FL, Austin, TX and Hartford, CT.All attorneys in these locations have been asked to remain with Dewey & LeBoeuf and relocate to one of the firm's other offices. They will have the opportunity to integrate their practices within the firm's network of over 1,400 lawyers in 13 countries. The decision is designed to continue the successful integration of Dewey & LeBoeuf, which saw its profits per partner increase to $1.57 million in 2007 following the October 1, 2007 merger.
The Jacksonville office, which has 10 lawyers, will close in December 2008. The Hartford office, which has 22 lawyers, will close in February 2009. The firm will continue to maintain a small presence in Hartford. The Austin office, which has 16 lawyers, will close in March 2009.
So that's the official word. See also this story from the Austin Business Journal.
The allusion to D&L's "global strategy to expand the firm's resources in major capital markets" is consistent with this rumor we heard: "Word on the street is that a consultant told Dewey to close Hartford because small market offices will preclude them from ever really competing with Skadden et al."
Given the firm's size, the number of lawyers affected by the closings isn't huge: fewer than 50, out of over 1,400. But some folks are still unhappy campers.
Some gossip, and a little kvetching, after the jump.
One tipster at Dewey in Hartford can't understand why the office is being closed, since it's reportedly quite profitable. Another source claims it was the third most-profitable of legacy LeBoeuf and "was incredibly busy."
The firm told Hartford associates that they can relocate to any office, provided that it fits their skills: "They're pushing NYC and DC, especially for the environmental group people. But the Dubai and Riyadh offices also have tons of work. Right."
Trade in your Lexus for a camel, and get that burqa dry cleaned! In the age of $100-a-barrel oil, the Middle East is where it's at.
Our Hartford tipster tells us that the firm will pay relocation costs for associates who move within the firm. But there won't be any severance if they work in Hartford until February 2009 and then leave the firm. The theory is that people have been given ample notice and time to find new jobs in Hartford if they wish to stay in the city.
It sounds reasonable enough, but another source is not pleased:
The no severance package policy contradicts what happened in December of 2006 when four attorneys were laid off (their partner fell out of favor with firm executive board) and were given the standard 3 months of pay package. What's particularly crappy about the whole situation is that there are several VERY senior associates there (11th and 13th years) who are now going to have a difficult time finding another job in the Hartford market.
In happier news for Hartford, bonuses are getting announced today. It's "over a month after the rest of the firm was paid their bonuses" -- but hey, better late than never. The bonuses will be some percentage of market. "We're not expecting it to be a high percentage," says this source.
Bostonians, stop gloating. You could be next, according to a Hartford colleague:
Per [firm executive director] Steve DiCarmine (who graced us with his presence yesterday, along with our CFO Joel Sanders and our CAO and a bunch of HR people), Boston's fate will be determined by the end of 2009. Our office will stay open through the end of its lease (February of 2009). If we're interested in Boston, he's not recommending that anyone sell their houses and relocate their families, but commuting for the rest of 2009 is an option (awesome commute, CT to Boston every day).
As for Austin, we hear that lawyers there are being asked to go to the Houston office. One source says that this option "is probably being met with just a little bit of resistance, since sometime shortly before the merger, legacy Dewey people apparently moved from Houston to Austin. Now they get to move back or leave the firm."
(The Austin closing, by the way, is relatively old news. It was announced at a meeting last month.)
Law firm to back out of Austin [Dallas Business Journal]
(57) Comments
First
Dubai is the place to go.
Not big news. Shuttering an office due to lack of business is big news. Shuttering a busy, profitable office because a consultant told you to is just funny (or maybe sad, or maybe it was good advice -- who knows).
And people thought I was crazy when I said our firm shouldn't even attempt to match salaries.
I'd rather stay in business.
Hartford gets no respect...typical.
Heh, something tells me my Jewish wife won't want to relocate to either Dubai or Riyadh. Anyone with exp. in the Gulf area know its degree of anti-Semitism?
Once Hartford lost the great Whalers of the NHL, I forgot the city even existed.
2:21 - HIGH.
2:21 - OK, in your case, if you would like to stay married, perhaps Dubai isn't right for you.
No problem, 2:21. If the first wife gives you trouble, your accomodating hosts in Riyadh will let you take up to three additional wives!
Can Jews relocate to Riyadh or Dubai?
2:21 - Dubia has more foreigners than natives. It is a truly international city. Just don't leave the city, ever. It is actually a beautiful place. Very pricey though, and built for vacations, not work.
If you were single, I would tell you it might be a decent option. Married with a jewish wife, I would strongly encourage you not to go.
I think it depends on your passport at least for Riyadh -- U.S. citizen, OK. Israeli citizen, likely to be problems.
She's got Israeli stamps all over her passport. I think I'll stay out of the Middle East, despite D&L's suggestion. Dubai might be accommodating to Indian guest workers, but I doubt they're cool with Jews.
When I interviewed at the Boston office not long after the merger, they were in the middle of expansion (both the physical size of the office and number of personnel). That doesn't sound terribly consistent with shutting the place down.
LOL...as part of our strategy to "expand" the firm's resources, we are closing several offices.
So let me get this straight:
Dewey shut down Houston in favor of Austin... and now LeBeef wants to shut down Austin in favor of Houston.
Ain't mergers grand?
2:40 - you don't get it? It is sound strategy to close profitable offices and reverse recently made decisions. I don't see the problem.
I'll relocate to Dubai!! Are they hiring?
Dubai is a nice place to work for a couple of years if you're single -- it's pretty friendly towards foreigners. Expensive, but nothing outrageous if you're in NYC right now. W/a Jewish wife, it may not be the best idea.
HARTFORD RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hartford.. stepchild of the business community yet again.
What does "small presence in Hartford" mean?
"In order to expand....we are closing..."
Love it. Nothing like a little PR with your JD.
D&L to 190!
2:59,
It means a phone line with a Hartford area code that rings in NY.
3:09 -- I thought it meant Jim Thompson's home office.
2:21 -
These guys have no idea what they're talking about. Your wife would be as uncomfortable in Dubai as she would be in England. Dubai has more expatriates than locals, as others have mentioned here. I've been all over the UAE and she would have no problems in Dubai, Sharjah (although I don't know why she'd ever want to visit there), or Abu Dhabi.
With all the wealth and economic boom in the UAE, do people here really think Jewish businessmen/bankers/lawyers are staying away? I've met a few Jews in Dubai while on business there. Frankly, no one gives a damn what religion you are. Unless your wife is planning on trying to convert people or walk around with a giant Palestinan flag on fire, why the hell would she have any problems?
My suggestion would be to visit Dubai. It seems no one here has (including Lat who constantly puts up the burka chick in Dubai related posts). There's a lot to see and do there - just go on a mini-vacation to the beach and you'll understand. Talk to some people who have been to Dubai. You won't be disappointed if you visit, as it's an interesting vacation if you've never been to the Middle East. You may, however, walk away feeling very inadequate after you witness the lavish lifestyles of those who live there.
Riyadh may very well be a different story. However, you would have no problem in the business community. Cash and business are king everywhere. If you move to Riyadh, it's likely your wife and you would live in a compound (which is what you would want to do). Think small-town America in a very hot, dry place. She may be bored, but not persecuted as she would never have to leave the compound. Even if she did - she is likely to be taken for Christian. There are a lot of white, Christian expatriates in Riyadh. Unless she wears a sign saying "JEW!! RIGHT HERE!!!" then I don't see why anyone would bother/care.
2:21 -
Update - be warned, rent is very expensive in Dubai. Not that far off NYC. You will be surprised. However, I believe they recently opened up their real estate market to foreigners. Buying a nice place is a lot cheaper than in NYC, and not a bad investment when you consider that rents are almost comparable.
If the hartford office was so profitable, why are they closing it?
I love that I work at D&L and get the official word through ATL. No firm-wide memo yet.
"small market offices will preclude them from ever really competing with Skadden et al."
That, and the fact that D&L is a festering TTT in decline.
i work at d&L and i found out about the merger through ATL.
not sure why they're consistently so bad about informing us of this, though i don't work in any of the affected offices.
It is very likely that D&L will close either its San Francisco or Palo Alto office, or both. The firm has publicly stated that both offices are "second tier". The two offices have shrunk to a fraction of their former size, and have no local clientele. Morale is extremely poor in both offices as a result of partners and associates being pushed out the door, and the head of the two offices, Jim Woods, is a baboon.
3:49,
Your use of the phrase "festering TTT in decline" gives you away as a law student. Clearly, either A) you didn't get an offer from D&L, or B) you are a troll. What, are xoxo's servers down today?
Hartford, Austin, Jacksonville = LeBoufed.
4:10 - Or, better yet, ReBoeuf-ed.
3:58,
Former law student, current V5. While my autoadmit slang may be hyperbole w/r/t D&L as an absolute matter, relative to its competing with Skadden, I'd say it's on target.
xoxo,
3:49
Glad I got out when I did. Everyone in those offices has had a pretty good idea this was coming since October. It's just official now.
Is D&L allowing transfers to the Dubai office for associates?
Dewey is the worst firm in New York. These people suck.
7:50 - Dewey is the best firm in NY. You Suck.
2:55 and 3:19 comments on Dubai are generally right on. DL here is looking to expand and there is certainly a lot of work. Riyadh is a different (less positive) story, both in terms of the lifestyle and the firm's presence.
You are not allowed to join or form any militia's, terrorist groups, or international arms rings in Riyadh. Spoilsports.
7:50 --- I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong. Dewey is the worst firm in the world. Please do not so easily discount Dewey's plans for world (and then interstellar?) domination.
Fact: Jacksonville sucks.
Anyone have a prediction for where D&L will be in Vault 2009?
4:43 - I was wondering where they'll end up, too.
4:43 - They will drop at least 10 points. Lebeef did well by taking over Dewey. Oh wait, it was a merger.
8:08 -- Why will it drop? Why do you say LeBoeuf took over Dewey?
I'm not 8:08, but I'd like to chime in here. I think there is a perception that LeBoeuf took over Dewey because it is legacy LeBoeuf's managment, primarily, who is running the firm. I, personally, don't perceive it that way, but I can understand how some can - particularly non-legacy LeBoeuf individuals. With that said, who really cares. Other than *maybe* some morale issues, I don't see that perception having any long term impact on the combined firm.
With regards to office closing, I must say I don't think a firm would close any office if it weren't in the best interest of the firm - that includes long-term best interests as well to those of you who may not fully understand what goes into these types of decisions. Closing offices and consolidating attorneys in the hopes of one day having the ability to open an office in a new emerging market is wise in my opinion. Management I'm sure is thinking long term. Legal trends do indeed change, and firms must change with those trends in order to remain competitive.
Yes, it is of course upsetting to those associates who are impacted by the closings, but, and not to sound harsh, such is life. Relocate if you're able, or simply take your experience and move on. An associate coming from any one of those D&L offices I'm sure would not find it difficult to get a job in another firm - even in today's market.
Well, I hope this provides some insight. And no, I'm not a partner at D&L. But I am an associate, and I think I understand why the firm (or any other firm for that matter) would be making these types of decisions. Keep in mind, not only is the firm in the infant stages of a merger, but it is simultaneously dealing with such merger at a time when the legal market generally is going through some difficult transitions.
Thanks.
I posed my question primarily because I'm unaware of other mergers of this size to which I might draw a parallel.
I thought it might be safe to assume that in 2009, D&L's Vault ranking would fall between Dewey's 2008 ranking (35) and LeBoeuf's (52). Perhaps the Orrick debacle and other issues surrounding the merger, including the office closings, might adversely affect D&L's 2009 ranking vis-a-vis the legacies' average.
On the other hand, there is a fairly strong correlation between size and Vault prestige ranking. Taking 2006 AmLaw and 2008 Vault (simply because that's what I had available), the fifteen largest firms, measured in terms of gross revenue, had a mean Vault ranking of 24 and a median of 19. Insofar as the correlation has causal elements, whether merit-based (e.g., increasing marginal returns) and/or perceptual (e.g., prominence and familiarity), the merger - which will make it 10-12 in gross revenue - might lead to an increase in its ranking in the long term.
Obviously, given that I had the time to make the above calculation, I'm just a lowly student considering employment at D&L. I referred to Vault simply because it provides a way of quantifying predictions, but I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts about the firm's future, whether "prestige"-related or not.
The fact that a firm would shut down any office that is profitable (as Hartford at least reportedly was) is a bit baffling to me. This business is pretty simple, sustainable billable hours and healthy revenue per lawyer = partner profits.
From what I hear and am reading here, the decision was not a financial one, but was a "strategic" decision based on geographics. If firm managment is willing to downsize a profitible office for the cache of increasing their "presence" in a larger market (where they may or may not have the same capacity to generate revenue) or opening a new office in another market where they want to expand or have a "presence" (where they may or may not have the same capacity to generate revenue), then I don't trust their good judgment and I'll personally think less of that firm as against its peers.
Besides, in this day and age, I don't see why geographics should be a driving consideration for this kind of decision. I am a transactional lawyer at large firm, and in my practice area you can basically run a profitable Biglaw practice out of the basement of your ranch in Montana if you wanted, so long as you can get the Fedex guy out there. My location has almost no relevance to the transactions I'm working on, and I believe the same is true for all of my counterparts all over the country at other large law firms that I deal with every day.
Anyway, IMHO, these closings seem irrational, since they appear to based on some speculative marketing-based rationale or "strategic" decision that was dreamed up by some business consultant rather than on the simple dollars and cents behind running a law firm.
As a D&L insider, I have high hopes for the firm. Personally, I agree with management's decisions in terms of what direction they are trying to take the firm. Both legacy firms (despite rumors about Dewey) were strong in the marketplace . . . a merger of this type will be beneficial long-term.
I may be missing something, but I don't see strategic office closings as a bad thing . . . and that is precisely what is going on here, make no mistake. Students should not see that as something negative. The firm is growing by leaps and bounds, and continues to acquire well respected rain-makers in the industry.
Being a part of something so new, and being able to grow with it, is (in my opinion) very good for any associate's future.
I think there will be a lot more to say in about five years . . . stay tuned.
I think it would be foolish to say that D&L would rank somewhere between where Dewey ranked last year and where Leboeuf ranked last year. It seems to me that D&L should rank higher than 35 (where Dewey, by themselves, ranked last year) because you should consider D&L as a new entity with the COMBINED attorneys, assets, clients, etc of Dewey Ballantine and Lebeouf Lamb. To then average these figures would be inappropriate.
1:23 - That could be right. And I have a similar feeling about how its ranking might change over time. I wonder whether there will be some resistance to an immediate shift in that direction, though, if only because Vault might not want to be seen as endorsing "bigger is better" in its rankings. Can "prestige" be aggregated? Some factors that might be relevant (e.g., PPP) cannot; others (e.g., international presence, gross revenue) can.