Bryan Cave Delays Associate Pay Raise By Three Months
When we last saw Bryan Cave, the firm was busy acquiring Powell Goldstein, and saying great things about their long-term future and financial health.
Having just added so many new attorneys, the message ATL received this morning was surprising.
Two pieces of news for Bryan Cave associates today: they’re deferring salary increases by three months and eliminating the associate shared fee program (where associates got bonuses for bringing in new clients)….The spin on the deferrals is that they’re a better option than layoffs and less drastic than an all-out salary freeze.
Shortly after this first report, we received the full firm-wide email announcing the changes:
In light of the continuing volatility in the economy and the uncertainties in the marketplace as we move into 2009, we believe it is now prudent to implement the following actions with respect to our compensation programs:* Deferral of Consideration of Increases for Counsel and Associates. Consideration of increases for counsel and associates will be deferred in all offices. For example, for those cities where increases were previously effective January 1, the date for 2009 will be April 1. Offices with different compensation consideration dates will
Occasionally, commenters in our layoffs posts suggest that they would be willing to give up some of their salary in exchange for keeping their jobs. So … here’s a chance to do just that, at least for a period of time.
But most Bryan Cave associates will be pissed. Because you know what would have been even more “less drastic” than an all-out salary freeze? Not acquiring the debts and liabilities of Powell Goldstein.
More tipster reaction and the full Bryan Cave memo after the jump.
Another tipster reports:
I hope this actually means no layoffs, though, as many junior associates have been really hurting for work. I also hope it means they won’t have to be too stingy with raises when the deferral period ends, since Bryan Cave is not lockstep with the Simpson 160k scale after the first couple years.
If people are hurting for hours, the next logical question is “what about the bonus?”
[T]hey’re leaving intact the hours-based bonus program, so the few folks who managed to find enough work to meet their targets this year (the bonus year ended on October 31 for most offices and word is that not too many people made even the first threshold) will get what they earned.
Oh, and Bryan Cave legal assistants? Yeah, Bryan Cave has some love for you too. From Bryan Cave’s memo:
* Bonuses for Legal Assistants and Staff. There will be no discretionary bonuses paid to legal assistants or staff for 2008. However, legal assistants will be paid any hours-based performance bonuses earned for 2008.
Leave it to David Lat to put the entire legal market into the proper perspective: “What we are seeing right now is an innovation of cheapness and a race to the bottom.”
Read the full memo below.
BRYAN CAVE — MEMO — BONUSES AND COMPENSATION
FROM: Management Committee
RE: Changes Affecting Bonuses and Compensation Increases
As we are all aware, economic conditions continue to be very difficult and are expected to remain so for some time. Fortunately, Bryan Cave has always operated on a conservative financial basis, and we remain on a sound economic footing. As you would expect, however, we are not immune from the economic downturn that affects so many of our clients.
Over the past year as the economy has deteriorated, we have implemented a number of cost control and expense reduction initiatives in order to better align our operations with the weakening economic environment. These actions include travel limitations, staff hiring restrictions, postponement of CSG Retreats, more focused use of marketing funds, renegotiation of vendor agreements and other expense-saving measures. In light of the continuing volatility in the economy and the uncertainties in the marketplace as we move into 2009, we believe it is now prudent to implement the following actions with respect to our
compensation programs:
• Deferral of Consideration of Increases for Counsel and Associates. Consideration of increases for counsel and associates will be deferred in all offices. For example, for those cities where increases were previously effective January 1, the date for 2009 will be April 1. Offices with different compensation consideration dates will be similarly delayed.
• Deferral of Consideration of Increases for Legal Assistants and Staff. Consideration of increases for legal assistants and staff on a firm-wide basis will be deferred until April 1, 2009.
• Counsel and Associate Bonuses. The shared fee program for associates will terminate after the current cycle. Shared fee bonuses for the period ending November 30, 2008 will be paid. The Performance Bonus program remains for counsel and associates. The discretionary
shared fee program for counsel also remains.
• Bonuses for Legal Assistants and Staff. There will be no discretionary bonuses paid to legal assistants or staff for 2008. However, legal assistants will be paid any hours-based performance bonuses earned for 2008.
As you surely appreciate, we are operating in an unusually turbulent economic environment. Like everyone else, we hope that economic stability will be restored during 2009. However, we consider the uncertainties sufficiently great that we need to take the prudent economic steps described above to ensure the Firm’s success for the long term. We very much appreciate everyone’s contributions to the success of the Firm which makes it especially difficult to take these steps. We trust that you understand the need for these decisions. Please feel
free to contact your Office Managing Partner, Director of Administration or us if you have questions.
Earlier: Bryan Cave & Powell Goldstein ‘Officially’ Announce Merger (Or Acquisition Or … Something)
Bryan Cave to Acquire Powell Goldstein
Related: ATL coverage of salary freezes
(81) Comments
Comments
suck it bryan cave
I am dating a CWT NY associate. She is really nice.
1 = David Lat ... who probably wishes he WAS in Bryan's Cave.
THHHHHHHIRD -- who cares about BC? Can we talk about CA Bar Results?
"But for most Bryan Cave associates will be pissed."
Jesus. Proofread.
Oh F it. Just eat a pizza instead.
More good incentives to do well on the LSAT, get into a good school and go to a good firm.
"But for most Bryan Cave associates will be pissed."
Jesus. Proofread.
Oh F it. Just eat a pizza instead.
Coming from a usual hater, nice post MysTTTal.
C'mon, Elie. Really? It takes 30 seconds to proofread a post before submitting it. Is that really too much to ask? I've thought people were being a little harsh on you in the past, but now even I'm starting to come around.
And I know such errors may seem innocuous, but they speak to your professionalism and the credibility of this blog generally.
CA Bar -- Does ATL Hate CA? where do think all the comments come from from 9pm to midnight EST? (besides Skadden NY)?
"But for most Bryan Cave associates will be pissed."
Is this even a sentence? How about proofreading what you write Elie???
CA Bar -- Does ATL Hate CA? where do think all the comments come from from 9pm to midnight EST? (besides Skadden NY)?
What a motherfucking craptastic firm. Ending the shared fee program is especially TTT - why should an associate that brings in business (unlike BC's partners) not get a cut? And of course there is the little matter of the fact that pronoucements like this are invariably a precursor to layoffs...
13 - right on. I would be particularly scared if I had just accepted an offer to join them after graduation.
Would it be considered evil if firm A merged with firm B and then fired all firm B associates so that firm C would not merge with firm B?
is that bad? just asking. . . .
Great work encouraging associates to bring in some new business, BC!
Got my CA bar result!! I passed!!!!!!! WHEW!!!!
Elie,
Honestly, did you really go to Harvard and hold a big law job? Please take more pride in your work. Your consistent mistakes are awful.
No one cares about CA except CA. Go put out a wildfire or something.
UVA2L
You people are serious douchebags. I hope the time that Elie's isn't taking to proofread his posts is spent interacting with people or getting laid. Try it sometime, you don't even have to remove the sticks out of your asses. this is why i dont read atl
I am glad I am dating a CWT NY associate. She has it all; sense of humor, intelligence, Tina Fey good looks. All is right in my world.
I can see putting off raises, but not giving an associate a cut of the fees for a client that the associate brought in? That is ridiculous.... BC is TTT.
That's just great. Don't be surprised if half the firms in Atlanta follow suit.
However, I guess its better than getting canned.
Sorry CA, NY is harder.
- Double-Barred
ps - Don't even respond to this unless you have taken both exams. I know CA has a lower passage rate, but not all applicant pools are created equal. Suck it Trebek.
Mr. Mystal:
Can you get Lat to install a comment filter that doesn't allow "proofreading" comments? Enough, people.
The Association of Blog Realists
19 -
Agreed.
- CLS 2L Stud
23 - it's better than getting canned if you were one of the bottom feeders who was going to get canned. If you've busted your butt, done good work (so that more is coming from partners, even in slow times) and built good relationships (internally and externally) such that your position is safe, then it sucks.
9 - "the credibility of this blog?" you can't be serious.
Are CA bar results out? The website says tomorrow.
Not giving associates bonuses to bring in business = no incentive to bring in business.
anybody know how Vinson & Elkins is doing?
29 - they are out. I passed
How does a firm expect to encourage associates to be rainmaking partners when it offers no rewards for bringing in business as an associate? Why would an associate bring in business so that a partner gets the money?!?!?
Better than getting fired. Much better.
* asdfqwnl; kqwavh;ur;a a;wgr ;aw gawg; lw;rg h;ah;nwipn;klj;a,.nmmclawefnivoias)(&^)&(^@#*(@%&!@)(!^@#$()!#$()&*!#$
i just failed my torts midterm! no law review or sa job for me!! there's no reason to live anymore......BANG.... *
"But for most Bryan Cave associates will be pissed."
Is this even a sentence? How about proofreading what you write Elie???
I'm sure BC partners are bringing in too much work and the decision not to encourage associates to bring in work will help them manage their heavy workload.
24 - I am also double-barred and I disagree -- California is harder than NY. While NY has more weird areas of law that could potentially be tested (no-fault insurance, anyone?), these are almost never tested and can largely be blown off. The extra day in CA tests a broader range of material, so you have to actually know more stuff. Plus, the third day is a bitch and makes the CA bar require much more stamina than NY.
YEAAHHHHH!!!! Nervous guy shot himself. I am elated!
Doug Flutie
Christ, is this BC's new tactic to up associate attrition rates? Got potential client(s) but I get no cut of billables so maybe I'll take it and self to another firm?
No one cares about CA except CA. Go put out a wildfire or something.
UVA2L
35: Stop posting. You aren't funny. At all. Seriously. Stop.
38, the third day only makes CA bar exam longer, not harder. An extra day doesn't turn a mile run into a marathon. And no-fault insurance is not a "more weird" area of law - personally, I thought it more relevant than the beloved RAP.
33 - At my firm, people are expected to have brought some business in before they make partner. What I get in return from a partner for bringing in business as an associate?
1. Training on client relationship management
2. I am not liable, but the partner who supervises me is
3. If I do good, I get to keep the client
4. When I have made partner (my firm is lockstep with some performance based elements), all business I have brought in before gets accounted for in setting my starting points
5. The partner I work for passes on some of his clients to me
It's an investment in the future. However, I would not want to invest anything if I worked at a firm like Bryan Cave
MORE TYPOS = MORE COMMENTS ABOUT TYPOS = MORE PAGEVIEWS FOR ATL = MORE MONEY FOR ATL.
Why are people still falling into this trap? You sound like the annoying know-it-all girl in elementary school.
33 - At my firm, people are expected to have brought some business in before they make partner. What I get in return from a partner for bringing in business as an associate?
1. Training on client relationship management
2. I am not liable, but the partner who supervises me is
3. If I do good, I get to keep the client
4. When I have made partner (my firm is lockstep with some performance based elements), all business I have brought in before gets accounted for in setting my starting points
5. The partner I work for passes on some of his clients to me
It's an investment in the future. However, I would not want to invest anything if I worked at a firm like Bryan Cave
33 - At my firm, people are expected to have brought some business in before they make partner. What I get in return from a partner for bringing in business as an associate?
1. Training on client relationship management
2. I am not liable, but the partner who supervises me is
3. If I do good, I get to keep the client
4. When I have made partner (my firm is lockstep with some performance based elements), all business I have brought in before gets accounted for in setting my starting points
5. The partner I work for passes on some of his clients to me
It's an investment in the future. However, I would not want to invest anything if I worked at a firm like Bryan Cave
I'm glad no associates got fired. But...from a firm-wide perspective, wouldn't it have been better to lay-off your poorest performing associates and continue to reward the majority of your associates who are performing well. Instead of pissing off all the associates, you just piss-off those who you wouldn't mind losing anyway.
Of course, maybe they are planning to lay-off those poor performing associates anyway via the "steath layoff" review process when that time comes.
who else thinks that 46 is in lawyer la-la land? should we just let him/her be?
44 - If you think a partner is going to actualy give back a client on which he/she is originating, you are either delusional or not in biglaw. Its not right but that is how it is.
i think 46 and 47 need to find each other in bryan's cave and have a tender moment or something
When I was at Bryan Cave (early 90's) they were cheapo. Cheap-O!
To clarify, they were cheapo in terms of straight compensation, and did not come close to paying top dollar outside of St.L. BUT they had the most generous associate shared fee structure of any firm I've been at (=4).
44, 46, 47, I agree. Partners are ALL ABOUT loyalty to associates. They'll totally give back your client when they totally make you partner and totally compensate you for the business you've brought in. You're either a 1st year who's been practicing for 2 months, or, as 49 put it, living in lawyer la-la land.
46,
as to point #2 - mal pal insurance and LLP. you are stupid.
46 - bingo. Deferr salary increases to save money now and go forward with layoffs later. Double whammy.
33, the answer is that there is zero incentive. in any event, i'm a little confused as to how any associate in his first 6 or 7 years would have sufficiently powerful contacts that he could bring in business to a firm charging $800/hr. I have brought in several clients to my firm, but the difference is that I work at a midsized firm where the partners (not the associates) charge $400 - $550 an hour.
52: You're too old for this site. Stop acting perverted. Pervert.
So, the memo says "we are fine, but we are going to play games with your money anyway?" If they are looking to punch rainmaking associates in the face, they are either cartoonishly stupid or in such horrible shape that they have no choice.
57's point is good. But, bringing in clients as an associate does help earn your keep. It also is unusual, and those guys are probably going to be tomorrow's rainmakers. If BC is hurting these guys, they are either very stupid or very desparate.
Pissed? Are you kidding me? The firm has diverse clients and work exists. I have a job for the foreseeable future while you idiots are wondering why you don't represent hedge funds structuring CDS deals. It's smart.
I feel badly for Bryan Cave associates. That has got to be scary -- who knows if these decisions will be enough to stop future cuts and layoffs? Ugh.
60,
BC partner.
48, I totally agree with you. If my firm told me they were not increasing my salary next year after I billed over 2300 hours this year to keep the job of the associate down the hall who billed 1400 hours, I'd be pissed. I think associates would prefer to defer their salary increases to save their own jobs. Also, I wonder if the associates, who aren't going to be getting a pay increase, will be billed out to clients at a higher rate for being more senior, as is customary.
57 - here is how:
A good, extremely competent and pleasant midlevel associate runs a deal, dealing mostly with the 3rd year associate or VP at the i-bank client. As they are all in the same practice area (say, ECM), they work together on another few deals. The 3rd year associate/VP enjoys working with the midlevel; the midlevel offers to take him out for drinks, dinner, etc. after a deal closes.
Three years later, the VP is now MD at the i-bank, and when he gets to pick the law firm for his deal, he calls the former midlevel (now 6th/7th year associate).
The same thing happens at a PE client, etc. I have actually seen this happen to my senior associates on more than one occasion. And we are at a V5 NY firm.
I used to get annoyed with the posters who commented about the lack of proofreading on this site, but, after months of zero improvement and hundreds of complaints, I am starting to side with them.
UVA -2L... i wouldn't count my chickens before they hatched. Get a fulltime offer then come talk shit on a bulletinboard with real lawyers. Thanks.
UVA -2L... i wouldn't count my chickens before they've hatched. Get a fulltime offer then come talk shit on a bulletinboard with real lawyers. Thanks.
64 - of course now that half of those VPs are gone it may get tough for the Senior Assocs.
29 - Get a clue. CA bar results come out tomorrow.
The tipster in NY is part of the problem. BC's rate structure doesn't allow the NY associate to be profitable even if busy, and BC NY associates have never been busy. Now they're very slow, and are the biggest drag on profits. For them to complain about scale when they make substantially more than the associates elsewhere in the firm who actually do the work that pays their salary is remarkable.
Abandoning a long-term strategy of growth for the firm is not "less drastic" than a one-time salary delay. It's much more drastic.
I'm guessing that this is the equivalent of cutting 7-8 midwestern juniorr associates, cost-wise. Hopefully that's enough, and hopefully work returns in 2009.
CA people, please please stop. We still have almost 29 hours to wait. Yes, I can add.
Not to mention, they don't go public until Monday, so you won't know for sure about that weird girl in your torts class until then anyway.
Lastly, nobody cares but those of us willing to actually note how many hours are left. So stop being irritating and STFU.
-Waiting (Im)Patiently but quietly.
70, wouldn't the easy solution be to close the NY office? BC talks and talks and talks about how they're able to do work more cheaply than other firms of comparable size because St. Louis and Kansas City are relatively low-cost markets. The New York office seemingly hinders this goal.
As a Bryan Caver I can tell you this is only the first shoe to drop. Both partner and associate productivity is horrific across offices. Unless something changes it is inevitable that even this collegial and culture-centric firm will have to enact significant layoffs. To include partners, associates and what we call counsel. Powell Goldstein isn't in any better shape than us. 1,200 underproductive rate challenged attorneys trying to pretend we can be Skadden or Latham. Call it the hubris of our Chairman and his hand-picked "management committee."
As a Bryan Caver I can tell you this is only the first shoe to drop. Both partner and associate productivity is horrific across offices. Unless something changes it is inevitable that even this collegial and culture-centric firm will have to enact significant layoffs. To include partners, associates and what we call counsel. Powell Goldstein isn't in any better shape than us. 1,200 underproductive rate challenged attorneys trying to pretend we can be Skadden or Latham. Call it the hubris of our Chairman and his hand-picked "management committee."
As a Bryan Caver I can tell you this is only the first shoe to drop. Both partner and associate productivity is horrific across offices. Unless something changes it is inevitable that even this collegial and culture-centric firm will have to enact significant layoffs. To include partners, associates and what we call counsel. Powell Goldstein isn't in any better shape than us. 1,200 underproductive rate challenged attorneys trying to pretend we can be Skadden or Latham. Call it the hubris of our Chairman and his hand-picked "management committee."
Shared fee agreement makes a lot of sense; encourages associates to bring in business. Those who do so are in better position to make partner. I understand not having an arrangement like that, but having one and then taking it away seems like a morale-busting move.
The BC business plan does not work. They should stay in St. Louis and let the big boys take care of the larger markets.
That's dumb. Why bring in business? So your body isn't first in the breadlines when the economy completely melts. Although, I'm certainly not taking anyone out to eat again on my dime now that the money isn't there on the other end.
BC Chairman Don Lents actually commented on this publicly:
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/11/a-chat-about-sa.html
As a Bryan Caver, I think they could have done other things instead of cutting bonuses, raises, holiday party, etc. The attorney to secretary ratio probably averages 3 attorneys to 1 secretary. The BC NY office is overstaffed and underworked and the secretaries still complain. In this day and age, Attorneys are more self-sufficient and a competant secretary can handle 4-5 attorneys. They definately need to get rid of the overhead, the staff with poor reviews. Right now would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
Well all the "we are fine" talk and they still had lay offs. They let go of associates, counsel and staff. No partners, no managers. Of counsel salaries were slashed as well. Trying to say they were in a good position to weather this storm and they let people go anyway. The fact is they were not honest, like most of the firms. They tell you things are okay and then the shoe drops. So much for "No bonuses, no raises..." and YES........they gave layoffs. So they are a number now too, much like the people they let go. Not sure how they are doing financially, but I have a few friends there who said they are nervous every day. Not sure if their cuts were enough and many of the associates are not sure where they will find work if they cut again.
A lot of firms have slashed two and even three times. Let's hope this stops. Good luck to everyone, everywhere that has been let go. It ain't easy out there.