Nothing is going at Skadden - DC. I have several friends there. So please stop posting comments about it.

fa-fa-flooey

Everybody is a friend at SkaddenDC!

2 = Joe Flom; just trying to snow us over re: crazy layoffs.

I said no Flom, not extra Flom!

everybody is a winner at SkaddenDC for dinner!

I stepped in some Flom once. Come to think of it, I stepped in some Skattten once too. Ruined my day.

*plans to attend meeting with 100 resumes to distribute*

-nervous T-10 1L
email job leads to nervoust101l@yahoo.com (no more about bank wires from nigeria please)

Skadden DC poster = sour, jobless TTT 3L

Everything is fine at Skadden DC as well as the other Skadden offices. We have all been reassured that the firm is weathering the financial downturn just fine and in many cases better than peer firms.

MD bar exam results are up...

ROLL TIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where my battered women at? In Baton Rouge bitches.

Lat - what is going on at Latham? They hired almost no 2L's this year, and rumors are that the corporate departments in NY and SF are EXTREMELY slow. A firm that size must have to shed at least some weight...

is skadden dc hiring 1L's?

-nervous T-10 1L
email job leads to nervoust101l@yahoo.com

As a Sutherland attorney, I swear if nervous T10-1L shows up, I'll punch him in his face and show him where to stick those resumes.

I believe this meeting will not be bad news for staff or associates. First, I think this is a way to just calm fears and make up for the lack of any communication whatsoever in the incidents 6 months ago. Wasserman's straight response to ATL is evidence someone's learned from the past. Second...the meetings in two offices are staggered by a day. If layoffs were going to come in two day meetings, that would just be dumber than dumb.

agree, 16. if wasserman reneges, it will look real bad. or, if they start axing people and say "it's performance, not the economy" that too will look bad.

Did they fire Asbill and Brennan?

there are no law firms in Tallahassee. Elle just made up an entire law firm and posted fake news about it becaue the Law.com blog told him to stop stealing their posts.

Sutherland's managing partner meets with associates for a state of the firm Q&A the same time every year. It always includes a plug for the firm's United Way Drive, which started today. The fact and timing of the meeting, in other words, is a nonevent.

This post went up almost two hours ago, and a troll still hasn't called Sutherland TTT? Disappointed in you, tttrolls....

yet another non-story.
*yawn*

Election killed the ATL board. (sung to the tune of Video killed the radio star)

SkaddenDC stealth layoffs. Thanks a lot.

I am boycotting this blog today.

There will be bad news, I am fairly certain. Wasserman is lying to you.

Don't believe everything you are told. Pillsbury has been going around having these same "everything is fine" meetings at the same time it is slowly and covertly laying people off.

I think they are going to have all the associates watch Dorothy in the "Wizard of Oz".

I think they are going to make all the associates read essays on "The Prisoners Dilemma".

Chicks in my high school used to sleep with teachers all the time. It was no big deal. Hey, who cares if you slept with a partner as an associate to make partner, you're a partner now, right? Don't worry about it people. Enjoy yourself. Sutherland is great at hiding their dirty laundry. This is just another "feel good" meeting, trust me.

Sutherland associate here. We do this every year.

I think they are going to make the associates watch "Michael Clayton".

Oh you poor little associate. I heard a partner say a month ago that if he could lock in his salary at 15% below budget and forgo any potential gains, he would do it. So. don't be so sure they aren't going to give you some bad news.

To all of you Nov. 7th posters, shame on you for not participating in the boycott to get rid of MysTTTal.

Hey associates, quit drinking the kool-aid. It's bad. And the partners aren't going down, you are. They even eat their own if they have too.

What's MysTTTal?

16 and 17: You make valid points. However, the fact that meetings aren't to announce bad news doesn't preclude bad news afterwards. As email notes: "We have been talking with the partners about these developments and how to ensure that the firm is best positioned for the future."

The term "best positioned" caught my attention.

The partner that commented at 20, and then couldn't let it go at 22, must think visitors to this site are morons. A state of the firm email says "Please mark your calendars for our annual state of the firm and united way campaign." Not "Children, we need to talk about the future of this family. Don't worry, your mother and I are not getting a divorce. . ." Of course there is a story here and when the bomb goes off, Lat will be able to link back to this purported "nonevent, non-story."

Yep folks, there is trouble in River City. They will make you an offer you can't refuse. Beware partners and associates. What once was a highly respected firm that stood for the highest levels of integrity and honesty, is no more. Count up how many of the women partners who started with the firm slept with their supervising partner while the firm looked the other way. Count the number of partners who stole work from other partners and were rewarded by the firm for knocking off the higher paid partner. It's not a pretty story folks.

what's Sutherland? who cares?

Sutherland is a has been. They used to be known as a "silk stocking firm" where partners didn't belong to just one country club, they belonged to two. They were made up of the geeks who never fit in but who graduated at the top of the class and had the right lineage. Now, they've got some smart lawyers, but ethics and integrity have gone out the window. The summer program is boring and geeky, it's not a fun place to work: their big outing is called the "prom". Many of the women sleep their way to partner. Of course, if you looked at these women, you know they never had much opportunity to sleep around because they are so god awful ugly before they got on the partner track. Same goes for the ugly male partners.

Who cares? The gullible associates who bought into the past reputation of the firm,

Some of these comments are completely off base.

First, Sutherland is in a MUCH better position than most, given the fact that their balance sheet looks healthy. I know some of the practice groups are doing really, really well (tax, construction, energy to name a few).

Second, I have never seen or heard of any of these supposed associates sleeping their way to the top. Having been there (fyi- I'm still an associate) for some time now, and being relatively involved in several committees, social events, etc., I can say that the shenanigans that have taken place here are probably no more or no less than occur anywhere else. One partner (in particular) who had the reputation of seeking out female associates is no longer with the firm.

Third, the bottom line is that every single firm in the country will be taking a harder look at the bottom line in 2009, and, consequently, every single layoff - in some form or another - is a economy-related one (however you choose to sugarcoat it). I am pretty confident that Sutherland (a firm with a previous reputation of NOT doing layoffs) will not be caught doing the same thing it did earlier this year (albeit to around 15 associates-hardly a mass cut). If anything, like other firms, Sutherland won't be letting those associates who have been consistently underperforming slide for another year or two during performance reviews-- because they're forced to take a harder look at the bottom line.

But don't be fooled into thinking that this isn't going on at every other major law firm in the country.. Outside of a few firms, I doubt there will be a massive bloodletting-- just some trimming of underproductive associates who might have otherwise gotten a slap on the hand in previous years.

First, you are an associate, have you seen the financials?

It was a partner from one of the groups you are saying is doing so well who made the comment about locking in at 15% under budget. If they were doing that well, they would be looking to go to a firm with a higher per partner average, trust me. Sutherland has fallen in those ranks for years. They can't keep up with the top players in Atlanta anymore.

You might not have heard about some of the assoicates sleeping their way to the top. Like I said, they do a good job hiding their dirty laundry.

Do you happen to know who one of the highest paid female partner used to work with and is now married too? Tell me that didn't get swept under the rug.

And, one of the sweet, unassuming partners who is now there slept with her "mentor" while an associate. She cut out other junior partners to get her "fair" share.

Don't be naive.

Sutherland has been treading water for quite some time now.

43- Three's a crowd, and she and he are both leaving Sutherland as of this week.

42- The committees are headed by the perps, so no, I don't think open discussions of widespread quid pro quo career advancement and routine payouts of hush money are number one on the committee's agenda. Sadly, the problem extends well beyond Little Dick.

It is very sexist and offensive to speculate that the successful women partners at this, or any other, firm slept their way to the top. Unless you are willing to also contend that these same successful women are sleeping with each of the clients that are hiring them, then I think you are on really off base. Indeed, it is just as likely to speculate that the successful male partners in your firms slept their way to the top or harrassed smarter women to steal their opportunities -- but I don't see anyone making those charges.

43 -- two lawyers at your firm got married and you think their 'secret affair" has been swept under the rug? Huh? Are they pretending not to be married to fool everyone?

46- they weren't married when he pushed her through as partner. Well, they were married. Just not to each other.

Oh please 45. The way the firm works is the senior partner gets the client, then he gets his associates to do the work. The woman associate who wanted to make partner had alot of other associates to compete with in the very busy practice group. But, there might not be enough work to make everyone a partner. So, the woman associate slept with the senior partner so he would make room for her. They don't need to sleep with the clients. How can you not know how this works?

When the two partners that had an affair and married each other after divorcing their other spouses, the firm looked the other way.

The other married partner and married associate screwed their whole practice group as they screwed each other for 3 years. Then, she used the affair as a trump card against the partner. The firm was okay with that too. She might even have gotten something else out of the deal if you do the math.

What is a firm supposed to do about lawyers have an affair -- do you have a moral police committee at your firm?

49 - Never heard any of this. Can you give any details as to the Office / Practice Group?

Atlanta/Energy

The sexism is from the irresponsible women who were smart enough to graduate at the top of their class and get an offer from the firm and still decided to go for it the old fashioned way. They hold all women back who are trying to do they it the right way.

No. 50- Ah, hello. Moral Police? I think they might have regulations about any activity that could be construed as sexual harassment, it might even be a REAL law. Might have something to do with creating a hostile work environment. I'd don't know, I'm just winging it here. Maybe the partners could get in trouble if one of their partners has some sort of charges brought against them if the relationship goes bad. Maybe that's why most firms frown on partners being in relationships with associates or other employees. Any employment lawyers out there?

Hey, what about all that happy talk the firm is going to give in the "yearly" updates. Get the questions to your leaders folks. Quit all this idle chatter.

Remember: United Way.

United we Stand, Divided we Fall.

I so want to be comment #59, but if I'm not, it's a really, really, special number.

I love it how the woman who slept with the partner to make partner now whines about how "her salary is never going to be what the guys make". Isn't there someone else you can sleep with?

Hey insiders- let us know how it goes today.

Desire / Misgivings

Do you really feel the need to air all of Sutherland's [unsubstantiated] dirty laundry on a publicly read blog? I get the feeling quite a few of the tipsters posting are actually the associates who got axed in May.

One way to find out if it is unsubstantiated or not -- ask Wasserman at the meeting. How many times were there complaints about sexual misconduct by partners that were mishandled or ignored by management. How many claims have there been? How many partners have been accused of such conduct? If he is such a straight shooter, I am sure he will have no trouble answering.

Nothing unsubstantiated here. Sutherland knows that too.

So, what do they do? Make postings making it seem like it is the associates who got axed doing all the blogging.
Smear and more smear.

51 and 52 -- I would have thought it was litigation/atl.

51 and 52 -- I would have thought it was litigation/atl.

49, they more than looked the other way. They expressly wrote an exception in their so-called nepotism policy for the couple.

Nope. It was Energy / Atlanta. For sure. No doubt about it. The story is so unbelievable, it's probably going to be a best seller. But, it's all true.

Let's just hope they handle client matters better then they have handled internal problems.

Well very similar things happened in litigation repeatedly.

I know someone who was sexually harrassed several years ago at SAB. She tried everything to get protection from the firm and to get the firm to protect itself. The firm did neither.

I know someone who was sexually harrassed several years ago at SAB. She tried everything to get protection from the firm and to get the firm to protect itself. The firm did neither.

There was no bad news at the meeting. Got the expected line that times are tough all around, but actually, the firm is better suited than many others to weather the storm. That last comment related to how the firm operates its partner draws and line of credit - i.e. unlike others, it doesn't use one to accomplish the other. Specifically stated "no layoffs are coming."

Nothing more to see here... please go pick on someone else.

Yep. The firm stonewalls. They resort to subversive acts. They protect partners who have conflict of interest and attempt to cover up their own actions, as long as they can get rid of what they consider "a bigger problem".

But, at some point they will no longer be able to hide.

66 is WRONG. It was Atlanta/Litigation.

No layoffs coming at Sutherland (all offices). Firm is (and historically has been) run conservatively. I know the Atlanta office has recently added a few laterals as well, so they're at least adding to groups with business (i.e., tax, energy, securities lit, etc)

73- Hey, it might have happened in Atlanta/ Litigation too, I don't know.

But what I know for SURE is that it happened in Atlanta / Energy. You can make book on that. Why don't you ask Wasserman yourself? What they are trying to do now is figure out damage control. They thought they had gotten away with it but loose lips sink ships.

And by the way, conservative is code word for they don't have the same PPP as the other top firms in Atl.

When the partners get the year end numbers, we'll see about the lay-offs.

There's nothing 'code-word' about Sutherland's conservative financials. From the top down, everyone always has said the firm doesn't rise as high as pier firms when times are booming, nor does it sink as low as pier firms when times blow, like they do now. People don't come here to make K&S or A&B type numbers as a partner, and making $700-$800k per year in ATL is not exactly chump change. And, for various reasons including the way financials are handled, we're not hurting near as bad now as A&B, K&S (or surely, PoGo).

- one who knows.

Then why is a major Sutherland partner leaving to go to K&S?

You can't even put A&B, K&S and PoGo in the same bracket. What about Kilpatrick, or PHJW? Don't be so sure the numbers aren't going down more, again, quit drinking the Kool-Aid. The only "everyone" you are talking about is the partners at Sutherland. You really don't know, or are you a partner on the EX-Com Committee trying to spread more propaganda?

76 & 77 - You two should meet for a death match in the parking lot behind the old Jocks & Jills after work today.

Nah, I think I'll just watch the fall out and see how Sutherland likes the collateral damage on their end. I believe in karma, not death matches.

79 eats shit for breakfast.

Ouch, seems like someone is taking this personal. Remember, there's no place like home.

81 is ugly and his mother dresses him funny.

Hey, did anyone speak up today in the meetings. Any news?

Hey, did anyone speak up today in the meetings. Any news?

83 & 84 - Hey Captain Double Post - If you can post something childish and ridiculous, then please don't post. Nanna, nanna, boo, boo.

"Shhh", even before you start.

Maybe Sutherland doesn't need any more layoffs because it somehow shed 82 attorneys in the past year. While CWT shed 111. Very interesting numbers, given that CWT had almost 200 up on Sutherland prior to the...ah... departures.

See last chart "10 firms that shrank the most"
http://www.nylawyer.com/display.php/file=/news/08/11/111008f

87 needs to actually read the article he/she/it linked to. Pretty "graphics" aren't all they're cracked up to be, counselor.

Yep, and that's why I've got that shit eating grin these days.

85- do you mean can or can't?

82- it must be those ruby red shoes "his" mother makes him wear.

Wait, CWT publicly laid off 130 lawyers and is down net 111 while Sutherland admits to less than 15 and is down net 82?? So even with terrible economy, many Sutherland attorneys saw better opportunities and voluntarily left? Something's not right.

You are right, there's something not right. Fess up Sutherland.

Hey, come on, give it up with the news already. What have they done, put a muzzle on everybody?

88: You give yourself away by the "he/she/IT" reference. Nonetheless, what in the article contradicts the "pretty graphics"? 87 has a point - numbers can lie, but only so much. If you know better, why don't you back up your snide comment with facts, counselor?

87/92 - read the article. Someone in marketing royally F'd up and submitted apples & organges figures to NALP/NLJ, resulting in a drastically overstated reduction. The article points out reduction was 2%, not 16%. According to an email from the managing partner, the mistake was pointed out to the publisher before release, but they claimed it had already gone to press.

Yes, I believe the partners are going to take it on the chin and let their lines of credit dry up. And, I believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

97 - huh? Lines of credit have not been tapped.

You're assuming the lines of credit are going to remain intact. Paid any attention to financial markets lately?

96: If what you say is true, then telling 87 and 92 to read the linked article is about as helpful as ice in winter. You probably meant the NLJ article. Guess that I too will have to wait my turn on the circulation list.

100 - 96 here. Yes, I meant the NLJ article, sorry. The article apparently went to press after the chart did, and included statements to the effect that the year over year numbers compared apples and oranges. Prior years it was total attorney headcount. This year was FTEs, which is a number the firm used to track turnover, start dates, part-time, etc. I don't know or care about the sausage that is a FTE number, but the point is apples to apples, down 2%. As reported, meaningless and incorrect.

What ever happened to the herpes epidemic?

Sorry 102 - this thread is already dead, so no point in bringing that nonsense up.

So why are you still monitoring it?

75 -- you are full of shit, because none of us believe you know the financials of all the firms you mention. All I know is that K&S and A&B are both expanding, and SAB has shrank.

76 -- which partner are you talking about?

105- Amen brother.

75- has been drinking the Kool- Aid way too long. I even saw him singing along with the Bobby McFarin song they played at the end of the meeting today: "Don't Worry, Be Happy".

As for 76, if any partner is leaving for K&S, they have a big book of business, that's for sure. And that means they are taking their book with them.

And then they sang "Hakunta Matada". It was a very moving meeting, especially when they all joined hands and formed a circle to pray. The leader of course was the woman with the scarlet letter.

Come on guys, you're killing me with all this. Like 103 said: STOP ALL THIS NONSENSE. This thread is dead. Quit picking on these poor saps. Do you think the clients ever read this stuff??

Why does everyone pick on Sutherland anyway?

105 - entire practice groups have left K&S.

what practice groups left K&S and where did they go?

Re A&B, may want to refresh that ATL home page about now.