word on the street is that Bingham SF has been doing stealth layoffs for several months now. i personally know a senior associate who was let go late last year. the firm is not doing well, at least not in the bay area. several partners have defected.

i hope they land on their feet

They should take this great opportunity to go to law school. Turn one misfortune into a bigger one!

"This isn't as sexy as lawyer layoffs and associate pay cuts. But today has been a bit slow on the news front, so we'll take what we can get."

So cut services without being brave enough to cut production expense. Not sexy...cowardly.

"So cut services without being brave enough to cut production expense. Not sexy...cowardly."

Staff members are costs. Attorneys are profit centers. And if you work at a shop like mine, the staff cost is astronomical given the lack of service they provide. I'm not advocating staff layoffs (especially with loyal staff), but my firm could have a 10 year staff hiring freeze and not be in any worse shape. I really think sometimes we're a benefits provider group to staff members that services clients on the side.

Second 6:57--similar rumors in SV, but I don't have specifics.

Second 6:57--similar rumors in SV, but I don't have specifics.

who cares? most staff is useless.

Really slow new day

"Attorneys are profit centers"

Haha, has this person worked in a law firm? Partners may be profit centers, but associates as a group sure aren't. At my large firm associates generate a few million a year in profit. Once you factor in all the fools who leave and bill 20 hours a month their last three months, and all the newbies who take six months to get adjusted before they bill decent hours, you can understand how difficult it is to just break even on associates. Sure there are senior associates making a nice profit for the firm, but even then it's nothing compared to a rainmaker partner. Associates are just as useless as support staff. Hell, a top partner's secretary is less likely to get laid off than an associate.

10:06 = useless "top partner's secretary"

No. If I was a top partner's secretary I wouldn't be worrying about my job security.

10:06 is an idiot. partners make money by charging clients more than it costs them for an associate to bill the hours.

wow only 14 comments so far? no one cares about staff?

10:20 right- totally ignore the value a partner creates by bringing in the client to the firm in the first place. it doesnt even matter if they do work associates could do for a lower hourly rate

I agree with a lot of commenters here - most BIGLAW shops have way too many staff, and paring those down is the first thing that should be done by a firm looking to cut costs.

8:13/10:06/10:39, you're too stupid to live. Associates are moneymakers for the firm. Maybe you needed 6 months to start billing decently, but I billed about 2100 my first year and had exacly 0.1 hours written off.

The fact that you try to use a red herring (i.e., "totally ignore the vlue a partner creates") to counter 10:20's argument that "partners make money by charging clients more than it costs them for an associate to bill the hours" means you are (1) stupid and (2) probably work for a shitty firm where the associates aren't revenue generators.

No wonder you're worried about yoru job security.

9:59, not completely fair. Some staff are really great and are absolutely invaluable. Some staff are terrible and have figured out how to work the system (which is to say that they don't work, or do so poorly that you no longer want to give them work).

The problem is that the latter group gives the former group a bad name. The corollary to the problem is that seeing the latter group not work is demoralizing for the former group and excellent staff members start to wonder why they should work so hard when their only reward is to pick up the slack of others. I've seen it happen where excellent enthusiastic staff become downright average -- the lack of care/effort of those around one eventually has to rub off on other peers....

I think most BigLaw firms will or should rethink how and who they hire as staff. The current crop of associates does not need someone to transcribe dictation but instead needs someone competent at e-filing, word formatting, etc.

I agree, 10:59. The staff at my firm ranges from phenominal to barely functional. Firms should be more willing to fire the latter, and it astounds me that some of these mouth breathers have been on the payroll for so long.

lol at "mouth breathers". Classic.

copy/fax, mail room and catering are all depts. that should be outsourced anyway. more efficient.

accounting too, no needs to keep those folks on the payroll. hire an outside firm.

Why don't secretaries do marketing or catering stuff when they are slow (80% of the time)?

Lat, the Greenberg Traurig staff layoffs in NY are a bigger fish.

Agreed. I don't think my office of approx. 70 attorneys needs 3 HR people, 1 office manager, 1 facility manager, 2 caterers (who merely deliver food), 5 billing specialists, 4 IT people, a secretary for every three attorneys in addition to 3 document support specialists on duty at all times. I feel like those jobs could be consolidated pretty effectively.

Skadden is going to layoff all GULC and UVA grads sometime today.

I don't think it's just restricted to NY.

I cringe when I read about massive lay-offs (it is way too common these days), however I have to agree with some of the posters here that some partners and general counsel really need to take "How to Hire/When to Hire/How to Delegate 101". While I do not work in a law firm (I work for a midsize beverage company), the General Counsel at my company is an idiot. She literally overstaffed the legal department. There are four contract attorneys (three of the four do not even have previous contract experience, mind you), a contract administrator, an executive assistant to GC, three license registrars, a legal intern (who barely has assignments and projects to work on) and a compliance manager who always outsource to outside counsel anyway. While hearing the grumbling from the "professional paras" in my department that they were not hired to scan, copy and fax, I am happily taking on those clerical assignments in addition to my drafting, proofreading and research. Anyone who thinks they are safe in getting cut these days really needs a reality check.

10:06, I think it depends on what level of firms you're talking about. The V10 firms billing midlevels at $400-500 an hour are making a lot more off their associates than my V50-100 firm which bills people of the same year $100 less than those firms. If I only billed 1800 hours this year because it's slow I would be making the partners hundreds of thousands of dollars less (even after taking into account salary and overhead) than someone at a V10 firm and barely covering my salary after dividing my collections by three for salary, overhead, profits. Also, just because it's billed doesn't mean you collect on it. Large institutional clients of V10 firms may be more likely to pay all their bills on time than midsize companies trying to weather the economy.

many office functions (mail room, catering, etc.) can and should be outsourced to companies that specialize in these functions. much for efficient.

Yes, much "for" efficient. Maybe they can outsource you too, dumbass.

9:55 = GW troll. You are not fooling anyone.

10:06, I think it depends on what level of firms you're talking about. The V10 firms billing midlevels at $400-500 an hour are making a lot more off their associates than my V50-100 firm which bills people of the same year $100 less than those firms. If I only billed 1800 hours this year because it's slow I would be making the partners hundreds of thousands of dollars less (even after taking into account salary and overhead) than someone at a V10 firm and barely covering my salary after dividing my collections by three for salary, overhead, profits. Also, just because it's billed doesn't mean you collect on it. Large institutional clients of V10 firms may be more likely to pay all their bills on time than midsize companies trying to weather the economy.

"If I only billed 1800 hours this year because it's slow I would be making the partners hundreds of thousands of dollars less"

What? Hundreds of thousands less? What's you're billing rate and collection rate? Assuming a $500/hour rate and a 2000 hour year and a 100% collection rate that's exactly $100,000.

"and barely covering my salary after dividing my collections by three for salary, overhead, profits"

I'm not sure what it is about law school or working at law firms that make otherwise smart people not understand basic economics. If you cover your salary and overhead the very next dollar brought in is profit. How much kool-aid does one need to drink to think they aren't making other people rich unless at least 1/3 of their collections go to profits?

10:45, you've completelt missed my point - my point is that associates my year don't bill out at $400-500 at my V50-100 firm, unlike at the higher ranked firms, so yes, at the end of the day we're making hundreds of thousands less than those at those firms for the firm. $100 less an hour is just an average, many midlevels are billing out at $150 or more less an hour than at V10 firms. So if both of us are having bad years, they're still bringing in 900k -- and I'm bringing in 540k (assuming a 100% collection rate). Who looks more profitable? You don't think a 400k different looks like a large difference?? And my point is that at my V50-100 firm we don't have 100% collection rates so the difference is even higher.

10:45, you've completelt missed my point - my point is that associates my year don't bill out at $400-500 at my V50-100 firm, unlike at the higher ranked firms, so yes, at the end of the day we're making hundreds of thousands less than those at those firms for the firm. $100 less an hour is just an average, many midlevels are billing out at $150 or more less an hour than at V10 firms. So if both of us are having bad years, they're still bringing in 900k -- and I'm bringing in 540k (assuming a 100% collection rate). Who looks more profitable? You don't think a 400k different looks like a large difference?? And my point is that at my V50-100 firm we don't have 100% collection rates so the difference is even higher.

The people saying that their offices are overstaffed will be the first ones bitching when their project is understaffed.

Stroock is doing layoffs.

what's roger lou's take on this?

11:02: You are missing the point completely. I'll use my current situation as an example: my company basically enters into 350-500 contracts a year (on average). However most of these agreements are renewals. You do not need to have four contract attorneys and a contract admin on the payroll. Have the contract admin handle the renewals and the small stuff and delegate the lawyering (ie: contract disputes, litigation, IP issues, and compliance) to either two or three attorneys instead of four. There is no economic sense there. If the GC could manage her own calendar, use a blackberry and voice mail, there is no need to have a f/t admin either. Again, it all boils down to economics in avoiding over budgeting. I would rather be hired and have the work than just be hired as a body only to be subject to budget cuts.

Maybe if Bingham stopped advertising in theater programs they wouldn't have to lay people off.

What's the deal: There's aq stigma about advertising on a bus or on late night TV, which clearly has a low-income target audience; but it's classy to advertise in opera programs and airports?

Maybe if Bingham stopped advertising in theater programs they's have more money and wouldn't have to lay people off.

What's the deal: There's a stigma about advertising on a bus or on late night TV, which clearly has a low-income target audience; but it's classy to advertise in opera programs and airports?

"This isn't as sexy as lawyer layoffs and associate pay cuts. But today has been a bit slow on the news front, so we'll take what we can get."

Why even cover this? I mean you're right--it's not sexy, plus, it probably has very little financial impact on these people. They're all independently wealthy, and this predicament will in no way affect their ability to feed their families. Plus, if it does and they end up on the street, so what? Unlike important big firm lawyers, how are these people helping society?

@10:45: 2000 * $500 = $1mil

stop preaching about 'basic economics'

thx

oh, i see 10:45. the diff. is 100k.

PREACH ON

oh, i see 10:45. the diff. is 100k.

PREACH ON

3:48 - are you talking about the partners or the staff who was layed off when you say "They're all independently wealthy"?

nothing to see here folks, move along...