Nationwide Layoff Watch: Milbank Cans Staff Attorneys
Last month, we informed you about positive developments at Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy. These included enhanced parental leave and a promise of no associate layoffs. In a bit of positive publicity for Milbank, whenever a rival firm announces a no-layoffs policy -- e.g., Latham -- it's described as making "the Milbank promise."
But not everything is hunky-dory over at Milbank. We hear that, earlier this month, the firm laid off the entire group of staff attorneys. It appears that the "Milbank promise" protects partnership-track associates, but does not extend to staff lawyers. (Shhh, don't tell Yolanda Young....)
We wondered whether perhaps it was just a case of contract lawyers whose project was finished being dismissed because their work was done. But a source explained this was not the case:
Milbank has a staff attorney program, much like Skadden or Simpson, where they have a group of permanent employees engaged in e-discovery, doc review, etc for the litigation department. Staff attorneys are not hired to work on a specific case like a contract attorney. They get assigned to various matters, and once they finish, get assigned to new ones, much like associates.
In other Milbank news, we hear that their summer program has been capped at 12 weeks. But considering that there are only so many weeks in a summer, and that some firms -- e.g., Pillsbury Winthrop -- are going as low as 10 weeks for summer 2008, this doesn't seem like a big deal.
A Milbank spokesperson did not respond to multiple inquiries about either the staff attorney or summer program news.
Update / Correction: This post is the subject of a correction. Please see here.
Earlier: What's Up at Milbank Tweed?
(93) Comments
Milbank actually uses the term "sophisticated, cross-border transactions" on its website.
http://www.milbank.com/en/NewsEvents/RecentPressRel/060330+-+Milbank+Closes+Complex+Cross+Border+Transaction.htm
"Milbank’s Global Corporate Group is renowned for its leadership in sophisticated cross-border transactions..."
How many were there?
FIRS . . . Ah who cares anymore, this site sucks.
Milbank is neither the first nor only firm to layoff its staff attorneys. CWT did it last fall, prior to laying off its regular associates. Sad but not surprising news and I'm sure that these firms aren't the only ones.
..stering... TT... cline...
Eh, you know.
Why would you want to fire staff attorneys? Aren't they a nice little profit center for most firms?
3:47- You suck. Go do a sudoku. Tool.
Anyway..... Before this much maligned "recession," how many weeks were summers expected to work? I'm working 12 and I thought that was standard.
Seriously . . . I cannot think of a less interesting topic.
Lat, why don't you moderate a roundtable discussion about the dynamics of BigLaw compensation and the thought process that goes into one firm's decision to up the ante?
I can think of a less interesting topic: 3-hole puncher
I worked 16 weeks last summer as a summer associate.
the staff attorneys were canned because the firm can charge out first and second years etc., doing exactly the same work as the staff attorneys, at a higher rate. so basically, because work is so slow here, the firm made the financial decision to get rid of cheaper folks and put in their place people who didnt have much to do to begin with, and who could be charged out at a higher rate.
Remember the days of hundreds of comments?
Interesting business model: Lay-off the low cost labor so you can shift the work to the high-cost labor.
It may work in the short-term, but eventually the clients get pissed if senior associates are doing grunt discovery work.
Staff attorneys typically handle litigation... and its not like anyone's lit groups are hurting (quite the opposite actually). When the economy goes south, firms ought to rely more heavily on staff attorneys... not eliminate them.
Lay-off those high priced associates - that's what the capitalist would do.*
*Partner
Yawn,
I guess it sucks to be them, but as long as this isn't the first step in going back on the promise I don't really care.
I guess it is probably good that they are getting rid of them. Regular associates now know that there will be plenty (albeit crappy doc review) of work to do. Better to bill hours on doc review than to not be able to bill at all and get fired.
Incoming SA (not at Milbank): We have to do at least 10, but less than 12. (Yes, I realize that only leaves three real options.) Is this abnormal?
"It appears that the "Milbank promise" protects partnership-track associates, but does not extend to staff lawyers. "
Um, Lat? Staff attorneys are not called associates because they are hired with specific understanding that they are not on partnership track.
Interviewer: What's your prediction for Biglaw attorneys in this economy?
Partner: My prediction?
Interviewer: Yes, your prediction.
[Partner looks into camera]
Partner: Pain!
I love empty white space.
maybe a thread on summer length? my firm is also capping us at 12, minimum of 10 but ive heard of others cutting it down- or having the 12-week start date ridiculously early...
Summer at Milbank here! I'm fucked!!!!!
4.17: Partner - the capitalist model doesn't take into account the fact the firm has to maintain its reputation when it comes to recruiting among law schools so it can at least get some of the talent, and doesn't want to be seen to have sacked any associates; Milbank also now has to live up to it's no lay off promise as well, which similarly does not easily calculate into the capitalist model when it comes to cutting costs.
The new ATL is a bizzaro version of it's old self. Milbank staff attorneys? WHO CARES!!!!!!!!! This site is nothing more than a law student chat room. Unfuckingbelievable.
Partner at 4:17 is correct; 4:15 confused rate (as in billable) with profit margin (as 4:01 pointed out). Unfortunately, firms face much greater perception problems if they lay off associates.
I like the idea of that roundtable re: upping the ante. .... but I think we'd be the only ones discussing it. No one's upping anything.... except maybe Milbank/CWT upping a certain something with broomsticks to their staff attys.
How about a thread on alternative careers for biglaw associates? non-law jobs or even non-biglaw jobs for associates at all levels. head hunters seem to have little to offer these days other than lateral positions at other biglaw firms. used to get calls about offers at banks with prospects for business side switch. understandably those are no longer a dime a dozen, but there must be other interesting exit opportunities. i (obviously) need to get out of this f'n place.
Partner at Milbank: I'm sorry, but we're going to have to let you go.
Staff Attorney: Shimmy-shimmy-yaw, Shimmy-yeah, Shimmy-yay!
Partner at Milbank: Yes, but we're still going to have to ask that you leave.
I am ruined. Good job hiring 80+ summers Milbank! Now we're all completely screwed come fall.
4:28 - I'm not sure that I agree. Thatcher Profitt, Cadwalader, Clifford Chance - all have laid off at least some associates recently. I don't think their reputations have been damaged much (if at all).
Milbank was dumb to promise it wouldn't lay off associates. Nobody has any idea how deep this recession will be. They could be forced to break their promise... then Milbank will look sillier than they otherwise should have.
And don't discount the affect of PPP's on "reputation." It looks much worse if PPP falls because firms are being charitable by retaining non-performing associates. At law firms in the middle of the vault 100, may be able to enhance their "reputation" if PPP rises when the other firms are falling. (and this, of course, could be done my managing costs/laying off associates).
I think it actually looks worse when partners are laid off than when associates are canned. In recent years, several high profile firms have parted ways with non-performing partners (i.e. Sidley) or de-equitized partners (i.e. Mayer Brown). These firms are still recruiting elite talent... and so will Cadwalader, Clifford Chance, etc.
Don't criticize the capitalist model... it ALWAYS works*
University of Chicago
NY TO 190K - only a matter of time!!
They will just replace these staff attorneys with cheaper contract attorneys. More PPP.
As a summer at Milbank, this is very concerning. Didn't they just promise that there would be no layoffs. They just lost all credibility.
Time to polish the old resume...
Maybe I'm the exception, but at this day and age, are most associates still delusional enough to think that BigLaw partnership is realistic? Frankly, I couldn't give sh** about PPP because for associates, it's as meaningless to me as the rankings put out by US News. Seriously, any of your dept partners share his/her PPP with you?
I will be a summer at a V50 firm in DC. The offer letter I received way back in the fall set the SA-ship at twelve weeks. In fact, I think it is twelve weeks every year. People should stop freaking out because they are 'capped' at twelve. What? The firm won't pay you $3100/week to eat filet mignon every day for an extra two weeks? Boo fucking hoo.
5:04, I doubt that Milbank's no-layoffs policy extended to staff attorneys. Beileve that it was discussed within context of associates.
"Thatcher Profitt, Cadwalader, Clifford Chance - all have laid off at least some associates recently. I don't think their reputations have been damaged much (if at all)."
How's life under that rock? CWT, with the layoffs, firmly cemented itself as that "other" biglaw firm that you only work for if every other biglaw firm rejects you. Maybe they were close to that before, but had they not laid people off, they'd at least have a lower tier to compete with. Now they're all alone.
Future 4th tier school law review conversation for years to come....
"Oh, you got a big firm job, that's great! Where?"
"Cadwalader"
"Oh....."
Capitalist model may always work but Bear Stearns is still grateful that it didn't in its particular case.
Don't worry 5:15, i'm fairly certain that the firms you listed are not terribly concerned with what you think. CWT and CC, at least, can use their PPP to attract very profitiable partners and maintain their extremely high revenue while angry junior associates and law students shake their fists in anger.
Sorry to burst your bubble but unlike law schools, firms are much primarily concerned with attracting clients and raising revenue. Sure, firms would love to have prestige and $$$, but if they had to favor one over the other, most of them would take the latter.
U of Chicago - cutting loose or de-equitizing non-performing partners seen as good business judgment b/c part of a partner's job is to bring in deals. Laying off associates who are non-performing due to lack of work is an entirely different story.
Cool out, incoming summers. G-d, the Chicken Little Syndrome really gets out of hand around here.
You associates shouldn't get too comfortable. First, they cut out the free snacks, then they layoff the contract/staff attorneys, next they layoff the associates...
After S+S laid off a ton of associates, people kept saying the firm will never to be able to recruit anyone. They still have some bad rep from it but they seem to be doing just fine now.
Everyone needs to chill out and relax. Just don't look at any economic reports... they are very depressing.
5:36: Have you noticed that some firms did it in reverse?
First they got rid of the free snacks.
Then they removed the free cola.
Next they fired the weird contract guy who always dressed inappropriately.
They quickly fired the staff attorneys, and then the paralegals.
I hardly noticed that the secretaries started vanishing.
When the finally came for me there was no one to stop them, or at least buzz me and let me know that they would be coming to meet me.
5:44. My personal experience is when law firms start to feel financial stress they cut out the luxury items first. They cut out the free food, then they go after the contract attorneys, shorten summer associates duration, and they come for the associates next.
BTW, remember Brobeck had a no layoff pledge also and we know how that worked out for them.
4:05 -- You're working 12? You are the tool.
Silly promises. So, Milbank will be paying close to $200K to have clueless 1st-2nd year associates reviewing documents? Great plan, Milbank. Lay off your cheaper, more efficient labor for more inexperienced/expensive labor. If I was a client I would hope Milbank's legal skills weren't as crappy as their business skills.
The summers at Milbank are in for some CUTBACKS. Not only will they not get hired, but they likely won't be getting the goodies that previous years enjoyed.
It's all about timing in this world...
What office were the staff attorneys at? All of the staff for NY? Or nationwide?
Staff attorneys rock. Anyone stupid enough to go to a firm without them deserves all the doc review they get. Clients everywhere should realize that at least for BigLaw litigation, they'll get more for their money at firms with staff attorneys.
Staff attorneys actually make a lot of sense outside of doc review projects for the flexible firms with large complex litigation projects. Often S.A.'s are staffed on large complex cases to draft the enormous number of motions, declarations, and pocket briefs that inevitably arise in every complex litigation (not to mention handling tons of research). Staffing these attorneys with 2-4 years of experience at $150-180 (SF/NYC) is often a very attractive option for clients that are used to seeing first year babies billed out at $200+. Obviously this is not novel ground breaking work, but it gains the respect and repeat business from clients who are looking for flexible pricing options that strive to provide quality for value. I think you'll see the use of Staff Attorneys increase and the sheer volume of associate hiring decrease to only those associates a firm truly consideres valuable.
Lat, would you consider doing a post about which firms and offices have much larger Summer classes than last year? There are a bunch of firms that apparently misjudged the economy in the Fall, and the information is up on NALP. Also, would you consider doing a post about what a no-offer means to an attorney's career? Thanks.
Has any biglaw firm ever been unable to hire panting, salivating law students due to perceptions of a "poor reputation?"
That's what I mean. I assume those staff attorneys were primarily involved with document review. If you accepted an offer at Milbank, not only may you wind up being canned after the summer, but if you survive, you may very well find yourself relegated to mind-numbing, non-skill building document review.
7:58 -- I can answer your question. Yes, there will be a large number of no offers this year. And what this means to your career is that you won't be working NY biglaw ever again.
Sucks to be us right now fellow summers!
Milbank associate here. I've done a small amount of checking (been too busy to really make the rounds), but I'm not sure this is true. Our "staff attorney" are discovery attorneys and I think some of them are still around. I don't want to be premature, but i think this is a false rumor.
Lat - what is your source for this layoff info? I agree with 8:29 - this sounds false.
Also, MTHM summer program has always been (at least in recent years) 12 weeks. No cutback there.
Lat,
Would you consider opening up a new site just for law students and summers so that the rest of us can actually have discussions about non law student related matters?
8:42... the max was 14 weeks last year, I worked 13... but 12 is pretty standard.
the milbank recruiting coordinator also "retired" recently. could have something to do with the fact that a quarter of the 83 person class isn't returning to milbank. but they supposedly have a 100 next year...
10:09 - Can you be a little more clear. A quarter of last summers class isn't returning as associates in 2008? Is that correct?
The NALP forms show all 78 summer associates got offers.
Milbank is hiring 1Ls for the summer. Things can't be that bad.
**** U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Law Firm Position Prestige ****
(all ranked from most to least prestigous / tier)
Top Tier:
- Equity Partner
- Of Counsel / Sr. Counsel
- Counsel
- Income Partner
- Associate
- Hot Secretaries
TTT Tier:
- Summer Associates
- Library Staff
- Janitorial Staff
- Dude Who Refills Law Firm Vending Machines
- Photocopy Attendant
- HR Folks (make sure we get paid)
- Law Clerks (associates-2-be who have not passed bar)
- Staff Attorneys
- Word Processing Dept. (those who copy my briefs and store records)
- Paralegals
- "Lit. Support Specialists"
- Ugly Secretaries
No Tier
- Papa John's Delvery Guy (he is at my office enough to be included in rankings)
- Contract Attorneys
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
is there any difference b/w a "staff attorney" and a "contract attorney"?
12:31,
Yes. Contract attorneys are law school graduates who have not passed their jurisdiction's bar exam (usually after multiple attempts). Staff attorneys have passed the bar but could not get hired as associates at V50 law firms.
Sincerely yours,
Sr. Editor, USNWR
oh, god. Naive law students.
I don't see why this is a big deal at all. Frankly, I'd have qualms about joining a firm that didn't make good business decisions. And capping the summer at 12 weeks is a far cry from deliberately shortening it, which is a far cry from laying off associates.
I'm a staff attorney at another firm. Our firm treats us incredibly well. However, in hiring they made it clear that if the work dried up, we'd be the first to go.
Thanks Lat for keeping staff attorneys informed - we do actually play an important role in these firms, albeit it a tiny one.
12:28 has it just about right. I would make an adjustment though and move the hot secretaries up to just below equity partners. They are extremely rare and hard to find. They are also usually impossible to fire as they have had affairs with the most powerful equity partners in order to ensure "tenure" at the firm. Other than that, the list looks about right.
JT fired 14 Staff Attorneys yesterday. JT feels no remorse.
Interesting...I think my firm is doing the opposite to save money - replacing associates with staff/contract attorneys (rather than firing staff attorneys to give the associates the scrub litigation work).
Whoever posted this is a complete idiot and an elitist ass:
"Yes. Contract attorneys are law school graduates who have not passed their jurisdiction's bar exam (usually after multiple attempts). Staff attorneys have passed the bar but could not get hired as associates at V50 law firms."
Contract Attorneys are barred and there are a huge number of Contract Attorneys who command more money hourly and yearly than associates at large firms. Contract Attorneys work In House on complex corporate and IP matters. Also, many Contract Attorneys do work on document review projects and even then they must be barred. Lastly and most significantly, the Contract Attorney model is the business model currently growing by leaps and bounds and will replace the traditional, anachronistic, law firm business model.
I'm a Milbank litigation associate. We have plenty of quality work for mid-levels and up, but a whole crop of first years is sitting around with nothing to do. Frankly, I'm happy to see that they will finally have to pull their weight with some mindless doc review. Our staff attorneys will be missed. Not so much because of the quality of their work (which was often crap) but because they had an incentive to collect overtime and work around the clock to finish first-level review.
Whoever posted this -- Contract Attorneys are barred and there are a huge number of Contract Attorneys who command more money hourly and yearly than associates at large firms. Contract Attorneys work In House on complex corporate and IP matters. Also, many Contract Attorneys do work on document review projects and even then they must be barred. Lastly and most significantly, the Contract Attorney model is the business model currently growing by leaps and bounds and will replace the traditional, anachronistic, law firm business model. -- is talking about something different; this convo is about staff/contract attorneys in biglaw firms. Contract attorneys at big law firms aren't making anything close to biglaw associates and make less than staff attorneys.
11:13; you don't know anything about contract/staff attorneys. Let me set you straight, since I managed a team of them as a 1st year.
Contract attorneys (just like associates), don't need to have passed the Bar. Their billable rates (and pay), however, are higher if they are a member of the Bar.
Contract (and staff) attorneys don't make anything close to a Biglaw associate's pay! A large chunk of the contract attorney's salary goes back to their respective temp agencies. Even ignoring the payout, though, they aren't even in the ballpark of 160K per year.
You are an idiot, and probably not in biglaw.
Oh, and while the cases on which the contract/staff attorneys work might be "complex corporate and IP matters," these attorneys aren't doing meaningful work. It's almost exclusively doc review. Sometimes staff attorneys might draft discovery requests and responses or make binders, but that's it.
Contract/staff attorney work is a good way to make a decent, steady, middle-class living, but it's for people who didn't do well in law school.
- 1:22
Just in response to what someone said a bunch of comments up about Shearman & Sterling being ok now, that's not totally true. Even up in Canada, where we get about 1/100th of NYC Biglaw news that everybody gets at the big US schools, the one thing everybody who was interviewing in NYC knew about S&S was about the layoffs. I don't think it was terribly rational - I interviewed there and really liked everyone I met, but I know for a fact that it made a pretty big impact on people's acceptance priorities.
10:26: Every summer got an offer last year, by a quarter of the class not returning I meant that a quarter of the class chose not to return and go elsewhere instead.
4-16-08 11:13: Relax. I think that post was in response (w/ heavy sarcasm) to immediately preceding one - which clearly was from a law student who is too lazy to google for the answer.
And 1:22, I'm not questioning your experience but you don't seem to understand the wide range of experience and pay for contract attorneys. If you manage CAs who aren't even barred, then work to be done is either (i) meaningless but something to be checked off, or (ii) mindless doc review. Try managing 10 CAs (all barred w/ 5+ yrs law firm experience) doing due diligence for major coporate transactions. It's nothing like doc review and I imagine that at least some of them could take on a little snot like you. My firm has pretty even standards for its CAs so for the most part, I value their work because it leaves me free to concentrate on deal structure and docs.
Also 1:22 - "Contract attorneys (just like associates), don't need to have passed the Bar".
So, associates don't need to pass a bar? Or is it that you haven't passed one yet?
He meant just like first year associates.
Although associates obviously must eventually pass the bar, first years and those who change jurisdictions will usually practice for a while without Bar membership. Therefore, my statement that associates "don't need to have passed the bar." is correct. Note that I didn't say "don't need to pass the bar." Yes, I passed on my first try (as most people do).
Your poor reading comprehension supports my belief that you don't work in biglaw and are therefore ignorant of the role/pay of most contract/staff attorneys.
- 1:22
4:48 - the blog post is about litigation staff attorneys and then people were discussing biglaw contract attorneys v. staff attorneys - what do corporate contract attorneys with years of experience have to do with this post? In the biglaw litigation world, contract attorneys do document review and make a lot less than staff attorneys and associates. Period.
Should staff attorneys at other firms view these lay-offs as a canary in the recession mine? anyone else worried that their jobs wil get chopped?
Not sure where ATL came up with this "story." Milbank discovery attorneys are still employed. David Gelfand, Milbank's litigation chair, just circulated an email discrediting this baseless rumor.
This is wholly untrue. There was no such layoff.
If it's not true, then post the e-mail!
I call BS on a quarter of the non-1L, non-clerking summers not returning.
@10:58, if you come back, could you clarify your comment? Blog post is about litigation staff attorneys... OK. People discussing biglaw contract attorneys v. staff attorneys... OK. What do corporate contract attorneys with years of experience have to do with this post... huh? Just wondering.
Greenberg Traurig NY recently layed off a bunch of secretaries and paralegals.
What's it mean to be "layed off"?
"Layed off"? It's similar to thirteen people all being evacuated at the same time.
Quasi-correction over here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/04/correction_milbank_hearts_staf.php
They still have "temp" attorneys, but they got rid of almost all "staff" attorneys.