first

1- loser

3 -- maybe, but I sure beat your lame ass.

I don't think Chicago is being hit worse than New York. My office has tons of work and the NY office of my firm is super slow.

K&L has played its cards right by being fiscally conservative (not borrowing money in recent years), and now the firm is reaping the benefits. This downturn is an opportunity for the firms who are on solid footing to expand into areas where they're weak.

I don't think any city is being hit worse than NYC right now.

"As we have reported many times, the economic downturn is hitting the Chicago legal market very hard, perhaps even worse than New York City. "

you are an idiot elie. Please, provide some evidence of this. Just one example of the stupidity of your statement, I ask the following question: Were the "Chicago offices" of Thelen and Heller hit harder than the NYC offices of the same firms? -Oh wait, no lawyers in Chicago lost jobs because of these collapses, unlike NYC.

Chicago has in no way been hit worse than NYC. Katten relied on two clients WAY too much, and Sonnenschein tried to expand way too aggressively over the past few years, especially into Charlotte.

I agree with the Chicago-New York commenters. Chicago's clients are often businesses that make and sell tangible products, not just financial institutions. Our clients are doing ok and therefore we are doing ok. I find it very hard to believe that Chicago is anywhere close to as slow as New York.

K&L Gates is doing a good job of trying to "grow through the downturn" (paraphrasing Warren Buffett). When things turn around they will be in great shape.

KL Gates definitely hedged well. They lagged behind their peers during the boom, but they now look to be the winning tortoise in this race against a bunch of structured finance hares.

KL Gates is getting waaaaaaay to big for its britches.

No way this will help them in the long run. Maybe hire some lateral partners but to absorb the entire firm that was struggling...thats KL looking up at that top 10 and saying we need to be bigger!

what's going to happen to my two applications i sent? i want my time and 43 cents back!

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

1 interview :)
7 dings :(:(:(:(:(:(:(
171 pending...
1 "wait until january" :/

Goodwin Proctor just laid associates off in NY.

Hey nervous, look at it this way: now you have two resumes in at the same firm so it is twice as likely that you will get an interview there. Good Luck!

MysTTTal

this is why i like Nervous. everyone else is talking about the impact of the merger and whether ny or chi has a slower legal market and what is Nervous talking about:

the wasted money on the stamp he had to buy in order to send an app to both firms.

keep making me smile Nervous.

I prefer New Edition over Bell, Boyd & Lloyd.

8- heller didn't have a chicago office.

6/10/11: K&L recruiters, get back to work.

How will this affect Stevens K?

Bell, Biv, Devoe to free cheeseburgers and not hanging out at my subway stop!

jones day is cutting back in palo alto office. you heard it here.

nervous JD SF associate.

20, 11 here. Not affiliated w/ KL in anyway, but I am a headhunter.

18 months ago, I avoided KL Gates like the plague, but now they are a much more attractive option -- and one that is an easy to sell to candidates.

Plus, they are one of the few firms that continue to hire attorneys in practices outside of IP and bankruptcy...

Yeah, seriously. The PR trolls really need to be a little less obvious. Who the hell paraphrases Warren Buffet on an ATL post?

The real question is the motive behind the PR blitz.....

19. That's the point of that original post.

Frankly, Elie's Chicago bit had gotten tiresome a long time ago. There is only one firm in Chicago that is really struggling, Sonnenschein, and even they seem like they are finally starting to turn around and generate a decent amount of cash flow.

Bad acquisition for K&L Gates. Bell Boyd has lost many of its rainmakers and groups in the last 2 years, including the heads of their bankruptcy, antitrust and environmental groups, as well as other partners. The firms are very different and I think Bell Boyd associates are in for a rude awakening.

"As we have reported many times, the economic downturn is hitting the Chicago legal market very hard, perhaps even worse than New York City."

Elie:

Standard blog protocol is to make each word (i.e., we have reported many times = 5 links) a link to those previous "reportings". Since you didn't, it's fair for the reader to presume that you have not so reported in the past.

Further, it *may* be a fair characterization (I don't necessarily agree) that Chicago *firms* have been hit harder than NY firms, but that is not the same as the Chicago *market* being hit harder than NY. Check again where the Chicago firms were laying people off--cuts in Charlotte offices /= trouble in the Chicago market, necessarily.

What's larger, a donkey's mound of poop after a nice long meal, or Elie's fat behind?

K&L Gates has been looking for a Chicago firm to merge with for a very long time. Look for Pete Kalis to continue the expansion of the empire. But to what end???

Elie,

The only evidence you've pointed to that Chicago is being hit hard is your own retarded conjecture at the end of the FEW Chicago layoff threads in the past 3-4 months. You've supported it with ZERO factual analysis. Your rancid NYC trolling is absurd, and as previous posters have noted, pretty thinly-veiled.

I usually don't mind you, grammatical mistakes and all. But this is out of line and completely unprofessional. You're making up news. Until you prove the assertion that you made, or remove it, everything you write without a hard, posted memo to back it up is suspect. I'll go to other sources for my legal news. This site is becoming a joke.

Doesn't this seem like an unusually premature announcement? At least by the wording of the announcement, it doesn't seem that the firms are that far along in talks.

Maybe K&L can take over Pillsbury before it falls apart.

It will be interesting to see if this proceeds. Remember that Bell Boyd has gone down the merger path twice in the last 10 years - and walked away each time at the last minute (for differing reasons) - once with Chicago's Hopkins & Sutter (which merged into Foley & Lardner in 2000) and once with Squires Sanders.

Pete will continue to look for expansion opportunities. Other targets: larger California presence, Atlanta, Houston, Eastern Europe, Gulf State and SE Asia. The firm will have at least 5 more offices and add another 500-1,000 by mid-2010.

As for Chicago, the headcount there will be trimmed by at least 10%-15%. There will be a 1 year transition period during which numbers will be culled (partners and associates alike). Wouldn't be surprised if San Diego was shut down. Pete was never keen on the city.

Echoing some comments about the firm from the past, yes, the firm is very tight with expenses. Fiscal control or the "banana" initiative as they call it. The policy is reflected in associate and income partner pay (salary and bonus), and strict control over job-related expenses. Those at elite firms would laugh at the bonuses given to associates and income partners alike.

The problem for the firm is that Pete wants to be one of the big boys but the revenue generation just cannot match that of the elite firms. You can only control cost so much to achieve increases in PPP. Classic example of cost control was a couple of years ago the firm changed its pay date only a few months before year-end. Idea was to push back one pay date into the next calendar year to increase profit numbers.

30: To what end? Global domination, of course.

30: To what end? Global domination, of course.

The above may all be true, but unless K&L Gates really looks under the hood, they may not truly discover all that is wrong with Bell Boyd. From the way certain partners interact, to they way the charge and force associates to write off time to keep their realization inflated, K&L would be much better off entering Chicago by opening an office with a few partners. BBL has a lot of skeletons.

I left K&L when I came to Chicago. I was told I could come back whenever I wanted. Maybe with this economy they might not be so overjoyed...but I would love for them to open a local shop. I would have to give it serious consideration about rejoining. However, if they acquire BBL, I may just pass.

"That firm is poison...poison, poison" --Bell, Boyd Devoe.

My "Chicago" firm is doing pretty well, and would be doing even better if it weren't for our New York office. That's what I hear about most other places in town. Anyone who thinks that Chicago is getting hit "perhaps even worse than New York City" is severely out of touch.

35- You might be right, but the California presence is stagnant and has been for some time. No effort was made to absorb Thelen or Heller partners, and they got shut out on some other potential mergers that went to other firms like Alston and Bird.

What's going on with Jones Day - Palo Alto? I interviewed there a while back, got an offer, but something didn't feel right (even then).

41 - There have been quite a few attempts to bring in groups in NorCal. They were just never too keen on throwing money around just to bring in big players. SoCal is altogether a different story because that group is still tightly centered around the former Freshman Marantz group. It will be difficult for those guys to accept large groups from coming in an affecting their culture.

They didn't get shut out on the IP lit group that Alston picked up. DD quickly revealed the deep problems that group had. Plus K&L already had Taiwan covered and a thriving IP lit group in SF. They didn't need to make a splash to get a group led by one rainmaker with a questionable history.

Echoing comments of the headhunter, it was next to impossible to get decent lateral candidates to look at the firm in years past. The PG&E merger and the China presence has significantly changed that.

K&L has definitely been struggling in Northern CA for a long time. They have never been able to build or retain a critical mass on corporate side and the litigation side has never had much focus. I think they really tried to patch together those offices bit by bit and found it very difficult to do. With this merger, they are clearly hoping to avoid those problems by starting with a significant presence. I don't know enoough about Bell Boyd to know if that is going to work, but that is the strategy.

Bell Boyd is a good firm. The acquisition by K&L Gates should be good for both.

Also, Seyfarth Shaw is in advanced discussion to be acquired by Squire Sanders. Two screwed up firms apparently subscribing to the theory that getting bigger will solve problems.

Bell Boyd is a good firm. The acquisition by K&L Gates should be good for both.

Also, Seyfarth Shaw is in advanced discussion to be acquired by Squire Sanders. Two screwed up firms apparently subscribing to the theory that getting bigger will solve problems.

This merger has the potential to benefit both firms. While admittedly Bell Boyd is not the firm it once was, it will give K & L some immediate credibility in the Chicago market. As many other large firms have found out (the hard way) Chicago is a tough market to break into for a variety of reasons. Frankly, had Bell Boyd not had the departures that some of the other commentators have mentioned it would not be entertaining offers at this time. Indeed, Bell Boyd’s biggest problem (even more than the departures) is the fact that it is controlled by a couple of older equity partners who are way past their prime and have been sucking the firm dry for a number of years. I am sure that it is only because these individuals were faced with either merging the firm or going under, that they have finally expressed a willingness to merge. This merger will give those people remaining at BBL some hope for a future and possibly minimize the importance of those old power players as they are escorted out … K & L will need to do some trimming of the fat, but there are some excellent attorneys remaining at BBL and the name is still solid in most circles.

seriously. this needs a bigger headline and beTTTer lead in. I suggest:

"TTTWO NEAR NONENTTTITTTIES TTTO TTTIE TTTHE KNOTTT"

K&L can trim the fat quicker than NFL players on diuretics. That part won't be a problem. See staff layoffs on 12/9/08.

Elie,

You may want to check your facts. As a partner of many years at BBL and one who recently left for more stable pastures, I beg to differ with your comments:

"... neither firm was thought to be in serious danger of dissolution. ... In this case, both firms seem to be relatively healthy. It does not look like a shotgun merger."

This deal is actually a life line for BBL. The firm has been in serious trouble for many years. At a recent partners meeting, the discussion was not if, but just when the firm will be bankrupt if it did not find a merger partner soon. The firm went through a number of potential suitors, but either the BBL personalities or the health of the firm sent the suitors running for the hills.

I agree that there are many fine attorneys at the firm, but that does not take away from the fact that several older and younger partners hijacked the firm years ago and have run a new course straight into the ground.

I left shortly after the partners decided it was find a merger partner or find a new shop. If the deal goes through, many people will be saved, including those who should be shed.

Unfortunately, at BBL egos run the show, and not talent or skill.

47 sums it up well and 50 seems in the know as well. These couple of old power partners as was said have sucked Bell Boyd pretty dry. They forced key partner departures to Baker & McKenzie, Bryan Cave and Jones Day and left the venerable firm with only two choices, merge or dissolve. K & L Gates has stepped in early enough to get Bell Boyd's IP and investment company practices (profiled in the release), which were on a collision course with the old guard and likely also gone by the spring. This deal will be roundly supported by the associates and hopefully by the remaining partners because they have no choice. The inept politicians at the top have left the firm with nothing to build from, very little work, people looking for the doors and no future on its own. Hurray for the firm’s cadre of good young lawyers who are breathing easier today having made this great escape to a new home where making partner can now mean something (and who are not facing the employment path of associates at Heller or Thelin). But it is too bad for a Chicago institution to disappear so comprehensively so quickly and so unncessarily as a result of the handiwork of so few.

As a real partner at Bell Boyd, several of the comments above are pretty laughable.

They appear to have been written by an associate (or perhaps a former associate with an axe to grind?) that only knows the surface reports about the firm he or she reads in the press. Bell Boyd is not in trouble financially. And there certainly was not a meeting where dissolution was discussed.

The “old guard” denigrated in some of these comments has generated a lot of money for the firm and that continues even today. The recent layoffs were regrettable, but certainly not unique to Bell Boyd.

The firm is certainly going to change. But lets not attack people and management based on falsehoods or half-truths. Or if you are, others should at least consider the probable source of these negative comments.

As a real partner at Bell Boyd, some of your practices of giving gratuities are pretty laughable. When I deliver your luggage from the hotel lobby to your room, I expect at least to receive a customary tip of $1/bag if not more. Likewise, if I hail you a taxi or help you load luggage in a cab, additional gratuity is anticipated.

If you do not tip, I will consider the probable source of your negative manners and send your bags to the wrong room.

52, while you would like everyone to look at the source, certainly you cannot claim to be unbiased, as by your own admission you are a current partner at Bell Boyd. Don’t you find it conspicuous that 47, 50 and 51 all are basically saying the same things and you alone dispute these statements? While it is true that at least some of these older partners are responsible for bringing business into the firm over the years, there is also no question that they are living on past glory. A partner that is adding little value to an established client relationship, where other attorneys are doing all of the work is not helping the firm when that partner is only seeking to pull out a large share of the pie. Moreover, increasing one’s current share for the purpose of increasing payouts after that individual officially retires is detrimental to the future of the firm. These individuals have been compensated handsomely through the years and should turn over the reins to those actually doing the work and who have an interest in the future of the firm.

Another question you should be asking yourself, is why are the Heroys, Sennetts, and Ohms gone from the firm? As a “current” partner you can try to pretend it is because these people were money hungry or only had their own interests at heart. However, this is certainly not true. They were chased away by the individuals you seem hold in such high regard. People don’t stay at a firm for over 20 years and leave to make a quick buck. At least some of those who have left recently had countless opportunities to go to bigger and higher paying firms in the past. Ask yourself why they left when they did.

52 must be Nancy Bertoglio

Can't be ... they said they were a "real" partner. That would rule her out.

Very true 56 you got me on that one. AMEN to 54 you are right on. The corporate dept. head and his boys club caused several of the female attorneys to leave back in 2004-2005. The five women that left are now all working at major companies in the Chicagoland area and very successful. BBL could have had a lot of new business from them but because of the way the boys club treated these women they have chosen to use the services of other lawfirms.

Funny how these boards always seem to attract screeds from lawyers who are terminated for sloth, incompetence or fraud. If a firm is really as bad as you say, a rational person would not spend so much energy looking in the rearview mirror. Only those who get canned tend to carry as much bile. As to BBL, the word I have heard is that only Sennett's move to Jones Day was considered a loss; the other departures were rumored to be net positives financially and culturally.

Funny how these boards always seem to attract screeds from lawyers who are terminated for sloth, incompetence or fraud. If a firm is really as bad as you say, a rational person would not spend so much energy looking in the rearview mirror. Only those who get canned tend to carry as much bile. As to BBL, the word I have heard is that only Sennett's move to Jones Day was considered a loss; the other departures were rumored to be net positives both financially and culturally.

One of the thing McCarthy and Bertoglio have gotten quite good at over the years is spin. Yes, they were more than happy to show Heroy out the door because they had a significant difference of opinion. However, don’t kid yourself, he had a substantial book of business, and the bankruptcy leftovers that the firm took from Freeborn don’t come close to what he had. I haven’t heard anyone trying to say that Ohm leaving with the environmental group was a positive. Ironically, he was the individual first tasked with finding a merger partner. Explain why he would be in that position if he wasn’t well respected? Again, he walked out the door with a nice book in the millions and Nicola Fiordalisi has a book about as large that he took with him to Bryan Cave. Nicola might have rubbed some the wrong way, but he was involved with a great many Italian companies looking to do business in the Mid-West and the US. Clearly a nice asset to have... At least you acknowledge that there is no spinning Sennett's departure. The mere fact that an attorney who many thought would be the next to run the firm left should tell you all you need to know.

In sum, I am not sure how you can say the exodus of millions in business can be a "net positive[] both financially and culturally," especially when there are associates and partners with nothing to do and the firm was forced to lay people off.

For the record I was not terminated from Bell Boyd for sloth, incompetence or fraud, or any other reason. I guess it is easy to try to throw dirt on people as opposed to confront the validity of their comments.

I find it a little ironic that someone who left the firm, regardless of circumstances, spends so much time running it down. If you are happy where you are at then why do you care about what happens at BBL? It is certainly not unreasonable for someone to question whether your views are biased and lack credibility.

As far as confronting the validtiy of your comments, you are wrong on just about every count. I especially take issue with your personal attacks on management. The firm has very steady and consistent management. Many people like working for a firm that doesnt open offices in Eastern Europe just for the sake of saying that they are an international firm. Look at what happened to Altheimer & Gray.

In addition, you couldnt be more wrong on the impact of recent departures. Your belief that millions in business left the firm is just simply not true. Some of the people you claim had a large book of business had far less than you claim as their new firms are undoubtedly finding out.

No need to open an office in Eastern Europe when you can just hire former Ministerium für Staatssicherheit agents to run HR.

50/60 -- Me thinks you have a case of sour grapes, as well as a whole lot of free time for writing creative fiction. Must not have found another job after the headcount reduction.