at least it appears that this trend isn't universal...

Cocke Lord will rule you all, suckas!!

Texas will rise!!!

If law firms had frozen associate pay in November of 1929 and then re-initiated raises when the economy "stabilized" people would have gotten raises round about 1946.

Let's see how many more announcements come between now and Wednesday. My prediction - too many.

This isn't even a pay freeze. It's a promotion freeze. A pay freeze is paying $125k for first-years for for seven straight years with no adjustment.

A promotion freeze is taking first-years and continuing to pay them as first-years even as they gain experience and become more valuable.

Let's get something clear. Latham has not said that it will not reconsider the pay freeze decision if the economy miraculously turns the corner. In meetings, it has explicitly said that it will constantly review the market WILL change its decision if the environment permits. Just because a memo does not say something does not mean you can infer the position in the negative.

Let's get something clear. Latham has not said that it will not reconsider the pay freeze decision if the economy miraculously turns the corner. In meetings, it has explicitly said that it will constantly review the market WILL change its decision if the environment permits. Just because a memo does not say something does not mean you can infer the position in the negative.

Let's get something clear. Latham has not said that it will not reconsider the pay freeze decision if the economy miraculously turns the corner. In meetings, it has explicitly said that it will constantly review the market WILL change its decision if the environment permits. Just because a memo does not say something does not mean you can infer the position in the negative.

My boni will never be frozen as long as I have a nice woolly sheep to nail.

7/8/9=Latham partner

Let's get something clear. You only have to click the "Post Comment" button once.

These law firms just don't get it. Don't kill the morale of your superstars and top performers with an across the board pay freeze, just kill this ridiculous lockstep system. If the point of this bullshit is to promote attrition, then keeping some back and not others would certainly do the job - would you stay if you were kept back while your peers were promoted? All payfreezes will do is piss off all of the good mid-levels and seniors (particularly those looking at the big $25k leap after 4 years of hard work) and lead to reduced billables due to apathy and reduced morale.

For everybody whining about compensation, where would you work if every single firm froze salaries and ended lockstep?

That's what I thought . . . you would sweat exactly the same damn firms you're whining about. Unless you're about to pull a Jerry McGuire and go hang a shingle and own something that you created for a change, quit bitching.

The firms that are doing a pay freeze are not stupid; they are doing it because they have no choice. They are cash poor. Their only way to survive is to make huge short term cuts in costs. They do not have any freedom to worry about the long term implications of the move. They are worried about next month. That is it.

Kudos to Ms. Short for expressing a commitment to firmwide belt tightening - partners included. Let's hope that we can read into this memo a commitment to no layoffs of current associates and to extend full offers to all summer associates this summer.

I believe that Dorsey learned its lesson earlier this decade when it laid off 21 associates, and suffered reputational costs for years afterward and lost a lot of ground to Faegre in the Twin Cities.

#7 & #8 are way off base. However, #9 makes some really good points.

Let me be the first to say Dorsey & WhiTTTney

Considering most of the Dorsey associates I know have been without work for quite some time, this seems like a prudent alternative to layoffs.

#7 & #8 are way off base. However, #9 makes some really good points.

Salary freeze = dying gasp of a law firm (yes, even more so than layoffs). It means they are in VERY bad shape, and simply cutting some associate heads won't fix it. Heed my warning - jump ship now if you can.

17 & 20 are wrong. #8 is dead on. 7 & 9 are crazy.

#16 = Dorsey partner

Any firm that takes the opportunity to screw associates out of a few bucks by withholding promotions while partners are still making $1M+ (Latham - this means you) is a bunch of true scumbags.

When the economy improves, there will be an exodus of unhappy associates from firms that do this, and I wouldn't expect great work product out of a group of unhappy associates either. I used to be in BigLaw but now I'm the client of several BigLaw firms, and let me tell you, we are watching to see which firms pass the pain down the line to preserve the profits at the top. The decision is understandable on a personal level, but shortsighted - the idea that crushing associate morale and building an us vs. them mentality won't have an effect on the work is laughable. A firm of REAL men would take the cut from $1.5M to $1.4M for the year and pay associates in full, with bonuses, to show them that all the talk about being valued team members is not just BS. Associates are generally not that dumb (at least they wise up after a while at a firm), and when you throw them under the bus first thing, they recognize the implications.

Now begins the rule of pain.

Poor grammar in the memo.

22- very keen analysis sir

15- you may be partly right but I think the primary impetus is still to preserve PPE so that the rainmakers don't jump and they can attract more.

14- makes sense for mid-levels and seniors, but how on earth do you measure juniors in there first few years?

Primary motivation for these freezes is to keep up PPP.

Dorsey is a TTT. And their fucking partners are crooks.

24 is stoned. The firm makes such moves because they have no choice. They cannot afford to worry about weather assoicates will leave, Their cash flow is awful. In those circumstances you cannot worry about whether some 2nd year will be happy.

24 wrote:

"I used to be in BigLaw but now I'm the client of several BigLaw firms, and let me tell you, we are watching to see which firms pass the pain down the line to preserve the profits at the top."

You're lying. As a client, I could not care less about internal compensation at the firms I use as my only concerns are the quality of work and the cost to me. As a client, when I hire a firm I am hiring the partner I want to work on the matter and I am indifferent as to associates unless they prove to be incompetent. I have to laugh at the notion that clients would advocate for a more equitable split of revenue for associates. Clients view associates the way sports fans view referees: we mostly ignore them unless they screw up.

31 is a correct. As a client, I want a good product at a decent price. IF a partner is working on the matter, that is a proxy for competence. If I deal with an associate on something I care about I am not happy.

31 is a correct. As a client, I want a good product at a decent price. IF a partner is working on the matter, that is a proxy for competence. If I deal with an associate on something I care about I am not happy.

These law firms just don't get it. Don't kill the morale of your superstars and top performers with an across the board pay freeze, just kill this ridiculous lockstep system.
__________________________________________

Oh please---can you even define "superstar" or "top performer" in the context of a biglaw firm? Neither can most of their partners. There's just the people they like and the people they don't like--the end.

Where is Dorsey and Whitney ranked by Vault? Wanna make sure my top 15 firm is not going to freeze salaries. . .

The line between superstar and top performer is obvious. The people who deny that such a line exists are shitty associates. You can pick out the superstars as 3rd years.

34 - I'm a partner, and I can certainly recognize good performers out of the associates I work with. I disagree that firms should abandon lockstep, but there are certainly some associates that are more dependable and provide better work product than others and the partner ranks absolutely keep informal lists of associate importance in times of economic distress.

Do you think associates are picked out of a hat when layoffs arrive?

Good for Dorsey. Saving jobs by holding the line on compensation for associates and staff - and, according to the memo - partners. Couldn't agree more with the "sacrifice of each of you for the good of all" sentiment. Have any of you looked at the economy lately? Those of you who become jobless will remain that way for quite a while in '09. Do you really wish that on someone down the hall just so you can make more money?

Dorsey & Whitney = Latham & Watkins

The belief that all 3rd, 4th or 5th years are the same for each class year is a joke. There are 4th years that suck and some who are terrific. Paying them all the same is good for those who suck.

"And remember, we all die in 2012."
-Eric Cartman

37 here - and by the way, there are certainly associates I personally like better than others - we are all human. But this is a business - does the fact that I'd prefer to have a beer with associate #1 make them less dispensable than associate #2 who has no personality? All things being equal, probably. But if associate #2 is clearly a more talented associate? Goodbye #1 - this is a business, and if that isn't apparent to everyone (particularly in times like these) then you should pick a new profession.

38 is a fool.

31/32/33 - also as a client and former BigLaw associate, your principle argument is correct. However, I find it prudent to read this website for the precise reason that it gives me insight into how firms are doing. I might not fire a firm for freezing salaries, but I sure as heck am going to be watching it very hard for morale and work quality issues. If I see prominent partners jumping ship, I'll start looking elsewhere. Pay freeze is only the beginning. It also means the firms are cash poor, more likely to try and pass on hours and costs that are borderline fraudulent, and will be more aggressive in trying to collect.

Firms watch out. Your (shrewd) clients are watching how you handle associate (and partner) comp.

16 (aka Dorsey Shill): I didn't see any mention of belt-tightening by the partners. The only statement made with respect to partner income was: "Although equity partners do not receive a salary, their compensation is impacted by the economy as well." Well, DUH! No commitment there, or any hint of reducing partner income. Just that partner income will be "impacted by the economy." What a non-statement.

34: Did ever occur to you that, by freezing staff/associate salaries, maybe they're trying not to kill the morale of their superstar partners? You know, the guys who actually bring in the business.

Elie, you are so fucking stupid sometimes; you act like Latham's omission of an end period for their pay freeze is something like a permanent deal. The fact of the matter is that once the economy rebounds and firms begin rescinding the freezes, Latham will be forced to follow or they'll face high associate attrition and receive less competitive applicants.

Instead of shitting on firms for little remarks, read Strunk and White and learn a thing or two about how firms work.

Reducing bonuses to the Cravath scale strikes me as just partners not wanting to pay more than market, which is understandable. Cravath gave the other firms cover, so they all followed.

Layoffs and/or salary freezes, on the other hand, strike me as signs of instability and weakness. I can understand the choice to do salary freezes rather than layoffs, but the strong firms don't have to make that choice, even in this bad economy.

38 here. 43 is a yutz. Assume the worst, and that's what you'll get. There actually are firm leaders out there who give a sh-t about something besides PPP in the worst economic conditions in decades. Ever have to fire (oh, sorry, lay off) anyone?

In Dorsey's defense, the raises don't do the Minneapolis people much good:

1st year: $120,000
2nd Year: $122,500
3rd Year : $125,000
4th Year: $130,000
5th Year : $135,000
6th Year: $140,000
7th Year: $145,000

And the bonuses they pay are not that great as well: the most common bonus (of those who get bonuses) is $5,000.

Since the $5,000 bonus is not effected, the rising first-year associate in Minneapolis is only out $2,500 - $122,500 minus $120,000.

24 here - 31, you might WISH I was lying, but I'm not; perhaps YOU are lying and actually a partner? Or perhaps just too stupid to realize how your work is really done.

You say you are only hiring the partner and are "indifferent as to associates." I, on the other hand, know that associates do most of my work, and sometimes even call the good ones directly with new projects. They benefit by being given credit for handling work I'd send anyway on their own, and I save money by minimizing unnecessary partner hours. If you think associate morale doesn't affect your work and couldn't care less how firms treat them, then please, send your work to those firms freezing salaries so that there's more free time for me at those that will actually keep the good people I use.

Douche.

Gibson>Latham

The line between superstar and top performer is obvious.
__________________________________________

Since it's obvious, define it.

44,

31 here. That's not how I or anyone I know looks at hiring outside counsel. I am almost always hiring a specific partner. The only partners jumping ship that I care about are the partners I want to hire. If the partner I want to hire goes to another firm, I will hire that firm as long as the firm fits into our accepable list based on billing practices.

When I was an associate, my morale was often pretty poor, but I was a professional and did the job I was expected to do until I decided to leave. That's how adults behave. I expect the associates that work on our matters to behave like adults. If the quality of their work is poor, I ask that they not work on our matters but I am not in a position to determine whether the poor work was caused by the fact that they are bad lawyers, or lazy, or disgruntled over their pay or upset because their dog just died. Frankly, I don't care about the reason and I'm not going to assume that associates are children who are going to stop doing their jobs competently because the partners did something to make them sad.

13 and 40 nailed it.

Plus, anyone doing real work this week should get some extra love.

Dorsey associates, report to the conference room. and drop your pants. Bend over, grab the table edge, and SPREAD THE BUTT CHEEKS SO THAT DORSEY CAN FUCKING REAM YOUR WORN OUT DIRT ROAD!

54 - enjoying the view from your soap box? Frankly, I just care that you pay your bills.

54, you are only grading associate work pass or fail, competent or incompetent, but some of us know there are A days and B days even for the best associates, and you'd rather get them on an A day when you can. More satisfied employees deliver better work product with faster turnaround, from attorney to line worker. When they are unhappy, the A days are fewer and farther between - a B day doesn't make you "incompetent" or your work product "poor," but if you can hire a firm that is keeping its people grateful for the work, you'll do better than with a firm suffering from widespread morale problems. Any firm that is cutting pay is clearly suffering from serious issues, and if you don't think this will show up in your work product or on your bills (or both), you're delusional.

54 -- The really good associates have significant control of the work they take. All things being equal, avoiding d-bag in house guys like you is often a deciding factor. Think about it.

Do we think that law firms paying 5th years 4th year salaries are charging their clients 4th year rates for their 5th years' work?

51,

31 here. Any person who claims to be in a position to hire outside counsel but talks about engaging counsel by dealing directly with associates is either lying or operating in some area of the law that I know nothing about. Based on the particular axe you are grinding, I am assuming the former.

58,

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that I should hire (and not hire) firms based on some sort of guess about the effect their work environment will have on their motivation? Why would that be more rational than hiring the partner I think is good and making the assumption (not always justified) that he or she will staff the matter with associates who will do a good job under that partner's supervision? I'm not going to throw out my prior knowledge of the advice and work product of a partner in favor of some hunch I have as to motivations to excellence. That's just how the world works.

Milwaukee pays more than Minneapolis with less legitimate corporate business to support it.

Can't wait to see whaTTT TTThose TTT firms do.

This is better than layoffs, if you can do better in this crap economy, good for you. Otherwise, provided Dorsey is being honest in its memo, I don't understand why this move is drawing heat. If the money is that important to you, isn't it better to be drawing a check while planning your next move than scrounging for temp work? Also, regional firms like Dorsey are much more likely to feel the layoff stigma than the big NYC/LA based shops, so this is consistent with selling such firms as "kinder, gentler" alternatives to Biglaw, especially to T14 candidates who could draw more $ at a Biglaw shop. Good on any firm that sees layoffs as the last resort, rather than Plan A.

Good on ya, 63.

38

60, if you think it's so unfair that a firm charges the client 5th-year rates and pays the associate a 4th year salary, why don't you quit, start your own firm, charge your client 5th-year rates, and pay yourself a 5th year salary. SInce your labor is worth a 5th year's salary I'm sure that will be a piece of cake.

Good luck with that and let me know how it works out.

AP Lawyers, the comprehensive reference of useful Law related information,articles. Find the best lawyers, attorneys and law firms in the US. Find the best Injury Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer, Criminal Lawyer, Accident Lawyer, Mesothelioma Lawyer, Medical Malpractice, Debt Consolidation, Nonprofit and other attorneys.

Visit at http://aplawyers.com/c/7/Arbitration-And-Mediation-Services-Attorneys/

"Did ever occur to you that, by freezing staff/associate salaries, maybe they're trying not to kill the morale of their superstar partners? You know, the guys who actually bring in the business."

That's a good point, but I think most of the associates complaining about salary freezes work for the productive/"superstar" partners and are correspondingly productive themselves. Seems to me that both high-performing partners and associates should both be rewarded accordingly and that the underperformering lawyers, no matter rank or class, should be the ones to have their comp affected.

62 -

The Milwaukee market is only $125k, only $5k more than Minneapolis. Additionally, Quarles and Godfrey have lots of clients outside of Wisconsin - and have had nice revenue streams for the last few years dominated by non-M&A and finance work - so they should be well positioned to survive over the long-term.

Foley pays $145k for non-IP and $160k for IP, which is above market. The analogy for these firms would be Jones Day in Cleveland, Fish in Minneapolis, or (strictly on how compensation relates to the local market) Wachtell in New York. Foley should not be considered when computing the Milwaukee market. Accordingly, I believe your fears are exaggerated.

68 - Foley in Milwaukee would be more analogous to Dorsey or Faegre than it would be to Fish in Mpls.

69 - Agreed the analogy is more fitting because they are both more general practice. My point was related only to compensation. Fish pays above market in Minneapolis, even for their corporate associates. Foley does the same in Milwaukee. Faegre and Dorsey are with Briggs, Robins, etc. in paying the market of $120k.

61, apparently you sucked as an associate before moving in-house. I had clients of my own by the time I left BigLaw - both clients who stopped calling the partners and started calling me directly for new matters, and clients who interviewed me as prospective new counsel, retained me as the handling lawyer for their matters, and never used a single minute of partner time. I now give associates at the firms we use the same opportunities when I can. Of course, I guess it should be unsurprising that a douchebag like you would be unenterprising as well as thoughtless. Work harder at karma and not so hard at whatever's got you so balled-up.

Happy Holidays,
51

71,

Please describe precisely how it is than an associate clears conflicts.

Thanks for playing.

65-

I'm not 60, but I did exactly that and it's FABULOUS!

72 - Easy. You get a conflicts report on the prospective new client first obviously (we had a dept. to do this). If no potential problems show up on the report, great. If some DO show up, you contact the billing partners in question and follow up to see if there's a waiver and ferret out whether there's a real business or ethical conflict involved. At least at my old firm, unless either (a) the conflict was a not-waiveable ethical problem, (b) the client did not grant waivers (only a problem in a few cases, but they did exist), or (c) an otherwise surmountable problem was made intractable by either firm policy (e.g., lines of business we don't take) or a dickheaded billing partner on an existing client, all was well.

We had lots of conflicts issues, but I found the partners generally very cooperative in working through them and getting cleared, though there were of course a few exceptions. I must say though - I was actually asked to run down conflicts even for some partner-brought-in matters, if you're a midlevel or senior associate not handling this already, you should wonder why. It's pain in the rear non-billable work, but you need to learn it and actually, it's not a terrible way to meet partners in other offices. Happy Holidays.

-- 51/71

#17 is way off base. However, #20 makes some really good points.