LAW = TTT

This is not good, not good at all. After Latham, Orrick is the second most prestigious/profitable of the pay freezers.

Can't be too shocking. If a firm cuts a bunch of people, obviously they are in trouble. Hopefully everyone left can just keep their jobs, albeit with slightly less money.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals is seeking a law clerk for its Chillicothe office starting in August 2009. Applicants must have graduated in the top 10 percent of their class and have either law review experience or at least one year in the practice of law. Applications that do not satisfy these requirements will not receive consideration. Salary range is $45,000 to $50,000, depending upon qualifications. Send resume, transcript and writing sample before March 1, 2009, to:

Court Administrator
Fourth District Court of Appeals
14 South Paint Street, Suite 38
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

3 - What about Dorsey & Whitney? Please also describe the benefits of prestige.

Orrick associates, report to the conference room. and drop your pants. Bend over, grab the table edge, and SPREAD THE BUTT CHEEKS SO THAT RALPH CAN RAM TWELVE INCHES OF MASSIVE PPP PAIN UP YOUR FUCKING ROSEBUD!

What bullshit. Orrick already raised associate rates in October. Nowhere in this e-mail do they announce a return to previous rates, so I don't see how this move is meant to help clients in this economy. It's just the partners being cheap because they can get away with it.

This is particularly bullshit because Orrick already laid people off, whereas Latham did not. Also, Orrick has announced that as of mid 2009 they'll be doing away with lockstep entirely and having a completely customized compensation model. Things must be really bad if they can't even do business as usual in the meantime.

Anyone know if Gibson and OMM are hiring?

Orrick associates just got their sheep Ralphed on.

BITCH SPREAD YOUR BUTTCHEEKS AND LET THAT ORRICK THAW OUT A LITTLE FOR DADDY, HMMM?

When Obama signs card check into law and associates begin to organize things like this are not going to happen any more.

And another San Francisco firm begins the decline... who will be left standing in the wreckage of Heller and Thelen?

OMM is firing

Where are all the a-hole Orrick commenters now? I remember they used to spam the boards almost as much as Kirkland kids with how awesome their firm was.

SUCK IT!

Where are all the a-hole Orrick commenters now? I remember they used to spam the boards almost as much as Kirkland kids with how awesome their firm was.

SUCK IT!

But if they are getting Skadden bonuses, but no raise, doesn't that basically put them in line with half-Skadden and a raise? Only the Skadden/no-raise category they come out ahead because of the time-value of money by receiving the difference up front instead of over the whole year. Sounds like a really stupid way for the Big O to try and save money. The smarter thing would have been to adjust salaries, change their bonus with a "sorry, but the economy made us change your bonus" email. Why are lawyers put in charge of making "business" decisions at law firms? While they might be able to stay flexible with their bonuses for 2009 to reward high-performers, what are the chances the really good ones will stick around? In the end, O is going to lose money, lose talent and lose clients (for charging increased rates for crappy lawyers).

NAILING SHEEP KEEPS YOU WARM!

14-15: True dat.

Damn glad I had a choice this year and did not accept that offer from Orrick.

Hopefully my firm will not be following Orrick and Latham down the TTT.

2L

I work at Orrick. I intend to work many less hours next year in order to make up for the rate increase but pay freeze. And the bonus doesn't help me, I didn't get enough hours this year to get a boni anyway. Guess it's 1450 hours for me next year.

Don't worry, 20, you won't even hit 1450.

You'll be fucking fired well before March. Count the paychecks, sucker. It's doc review hell for you.

a little too graphic #7

a little too graphic #7

a little too graphic #7

20 - I tried that before. It worked great. I got fired.

16 -- doing a bonus change memo doesn't save orrick any money, since they already know that most of the associates there didn't meet the minimum billables for a bonus anyway.

25 is an Orrick partner hoping his house of cards isn't blown down by smart associates.

27 is a doc review monkey who had such shitty numbers that even his URM status couldn't get him into a decent school, and who would like nothing better than seeing someone get fired.

16- Because Orrick won't have to pay the Skadden level bonuses to many of its associates. Which is why they are the worst of the worst in terms of trying to save face when really just deceiving people and screwing their associates

Sorry, but all doc review jobs have been shipped to India... Have fun at starbucks! Thanks, ABA!

So they paid good bonuses but are freezing salaries? the leadership seems pretty confused. id rather take my shitty bonus along with every other firm than have my salary froze for god knows how long. elie, you ready stop saying firms should blindly follow orrick?

New California rankings:

1. Skadden
2. Gibson
3. OMM
4. Munger
5. Irell
6. Quinn
7. Kirkland & Ellis
8. MoFo
9. Paul Hastings

...

TTT
...

24. Orrick
25. Latham

27 - "smart associates" Hahahahahaha!!!! Good one.

We are all fucked. This will last more than the three years (max) that any of us could hope to last in this rat race.

We're the last ones to the party, and we're getting stuck with the check.

What's an Irell?

Who wants to take bets on the first firm to have an associate who snaps? Anyone?

Irell is #1.

37 - yeah, #1...for psycho shut-in douchebags

define "snaps," 36

20, I think your comment must be a joke to get a response from people. If so, damn good job. But if you were serious and this is your thinking, it's comments like yours that have diminished the credibility of ATL with law firms. Before all of this whining and outrageous entitlement, partners used to actually care what was said on here. Those days are about 6 months gone.

Orrick was just GULC'd.

To all my Orrick boys & girls:

I pour out the rest of the 40 I started pouring out for you last month, while singing R&B

REMEMBER:

THIS IS (MOSTLY) THE ABA'S FAULT

give them NOTHING but SCORN

what is the hours requirement for the standard bonus at Orrick?

34 = nailed it!

Any notion that layoffs will be avoided by salary freezes is just nonsense. The two have nothing to do with one another, aside from the fact that each is a cost-cutting measure. A parntership willing to freeze salaries is equally willing to layoff idle attorneys on top of it.

wake up!

34, 45, nailed it old skoolz

46: "wake up"? Wake up and do what, you stupid fuck?

ORRICK is getting GULCed by an IRELL and will leave with nothing but a MUNGER necklace.

14,

Kirkland kid here. While we didn't SHATTER the market this year, the firm is as profitable as ever, with PPP expected to exceed 3M.

Also, our comp is still above market. About 80% of juniors exceeded Cravath. About 10-20% reached or exceeded Skadden levels. Midlevels on average received at or near Skadden levels, with many exceeding. Also Kirkland doesn't have senior associates, but instead, nonequity partners. Their all-in compensation still exceeds Skadden's "senior associate" base+bonus

32 - Jones Day should be at the top of your CA rankings. They are busy, profitable, gave huge raises, and snapped up the best Heller folks.

48: Quoting Ellie, "Is this move by Orrick an attempt to stave off even more layoffs?"

Wake up to the fact that this statement is nonsense (you stupid fuck).

37 = nutjob. Irell? Please!

Irell, Munger, and to an even greater extent Allen Matkins, are completely irrelevant to Cal. BigLaw, as they are Cal-only specialty shops, and account for - what? - 500-600 lawyers between them? WHO CARES!

True ranking is as follows:

1. Skadden
______________

2. - 100. TTT

The ABA may have had some part in this, but the situation we face is a natural product of market conditions.

There's a huge over-supply of qualified, willing associates on the market searching for BIGLAW jobs.

High salaries and bonuses are paid to keep associates at the firm (i.e., to prevent them from taking jobs with other firms, investment banks, in-house legal departtments, etc.).

Since alternative jobs are scarce, firms do not have to pay high salaries and bonuses to retain personnel.

Hence: pay freezes and bonus cuts.

The best way to survive this storm is to lay low, do good work, and bill lots of hours. Partners have a marginal incentive to retain associates since there are transaction costs associated with personnel replacement (i.e., headhunter fees, training costs, etc.). Firms have also learned that laying off more associates than is absolutely necessary leaves them at a strategic disadvantage when the market recovers (which it will do in 12-24 months).

50 -- why would you come on here and reinforce your toolish reputation?

As if anyone cares about your numbers?

I don't understand #10

I don't understand #10

I don't understand #10

No 54, the best plan is not to be a dumbass, and get a job at a real firm that is not laying off people. They do exist.

Cooley should be high up on the list of top California firms (though its attorneys are now about half West Coast half East Coast).

I don't know why there is still this idea that LW did salary freezes "in part, to stave off layoffs". Never once has LW mentioned that the salary freezes would help stave off layoffs

McGuireWoods/Hunton and other VA BIGLAW firms...any word?

50, that's great that the partners are making a ton of money. But the midlevel associates in no way averaged a Skadden-level bonus.

I don't think 58 understands #10. I could be wrong though.

50 is wrong. Average midlevels at K&E got Cravath plus a grand or two.

64-nailed it, right on

I don't understand #10

I was regretting not accepting my offer there until the layoffs and now this. Why does it seem like it's primarily the California firms that overextended themselves in the past few years? During my interview, more than one partner talked up thier new office in Berlin.

60: you're obviously either pretty junior or work at Cooley. There was a veritable bloodbath at Cooley after the last recession, and they fired people left and right. They were one of the worst. Your comment shows that firms shouldn't care about the bad press because it's all temporary. Their pool of applicants can't/don't bother to learn anything about the firm except what happened in the last year or two. I, though, remember how Cooley treated its associates when things turned south.

50, stop being such a kool aid drinker.

it doesn't make me happy if PPP is as high as ever when i got $4k above cravath bonus knowing the firm can afford to give me more.

70, et al. -- how can business lawyers be such innocent lambs when it comes to basic economics? Do you really think the partners for whom you work are morally obligated to give you every last cent that they can "afford"? You are not a partner, you are an associate. You were hired to do a job. No commitments were made to you about salary, beyond your starting salary. If you don't like the arrangement, then start your own firm.

You are all free agents. If you don't like what a law firm is paying you, go work somewhere else, or start your own law firm. In the meantime, you are probably making enough to get by.

If you love practicing law, and can keep your job through this recession, still making a decent amount of money, in the long term you should do very well..

If you are only in it for the money (like me) then you shouldn't take it personal anyway.

50 -- you can tell that you're a lawyer and know nothing about business. 70 is right -- who gives a damn about ppp unless you're a partner??? as a junior associate or law student, the TOP law firms are firms like susman, williamsconnolly, munger, irell, etc who don't necessarily or always have top ppp but give associates great training -- where it's actually quasi-enjoyable to be a lawyer rather than a doc review money or banker-wannabe..

also, high ppp today for kirkland probably means that they're NOT INVESTING in the future -- eg, not recruiting the top students (at my top 10 they definitely don't), don't pay as much as they could to retain top midlevels, are too leveraged and therefore don't give good training, no client development, etc.

Maybe they should have a separate ATL for partners so they can brag about ppp -- b/c it doesn't mean crap to associates and may actually be a bad thing for them (except for those associates whose self worth comes from firm "prestige" -- but such people are less smart than walmart cashiers who don't brag about walmart's profits!).

Ok, perhaps it's time to rethink why biglaw associates work long hours in expensive cities to achieve a very low quality of life. Imagine an alternate universe where you weren't valedictorian of your class, stayed home in your parents' mid-sized city, went to state schools on little debt, and now, after factoring in the cost of living, have a cushier material life AND a better quality of life (ie, one without regular stress nightmares). I guess prestige is very expensive.

A law professor of mine once said that a law student or associate fawning over profits per partner is like the turkey getting excited about Thanksgiving dinner. He had a good point.

The bloodbath is not primarily in California - it's heavily affecting all of the primary finance markets, and all others indirectly. New York is #1 in finance, followed by Los Angeles at #2 and Chicago at #3. Naturally, you see a concentration of meltdowns in those markets.

Don't forget about all the New York "problem" firms...
Cadwalader
Thatcher Proffitt
Drier
White & Case
etc.

75 is correct. PPP is driven by many variables that associates are only vaguely aware of, if at all: occupancy costs, associate leverage, deferred partner comp, billing arrangements. And at non-lockstep firms and firms with non-equity partners (ie just about all but a handful of top NY firms), PPP is even irrelevant to most partners. I would guess that 95% of the people wailing about the unfairness of it all have virtually no grasp of law firm economics.

Have any firms confirmed salary increases yet?

75: I don't follow the analogy. A turkey shouldn't get excited about Thanksgiving dinner b/c it's gonna be the main course. But how is a partner going to be devoured/hurt/otherwise when he learns about PPP? Just generalized disappointment that the shares aren't equal?

Did your professor work at a TTT?

74,

In three years I've paid off half my private loans and saved ~150K. In another three years the loans will be gone and I hope to have closer to $400k in the bank. I live with my girlfriend who is doing the same thing. After 6 years of working hard in NYC we'll be debt free with a ton of cash. If we want to move to a smaller city then, we can do that with a minimal mortgage and a great head start on retirement. If we can somehow last here a couple years longer, we'll achieve a level of economic freedom few people get without a trust fund. So, it's not all for nothing.

79 - reading skills much? For your convenience, I have emphasized the relevant words in 75's comment, below:

A law professor of mine once said that a LAW STUDENT OR ASSOCIATE fawning over profits per partner is like the turkey getting excited about Thanksgiving dinner. He had a good point.

79 - wow, great job on the reading comprehension there.

79 - insanely stupid

74: Get out of my head!!!!!

71/72 --

the partners own the business, not me. they have no obligation to share anything with me.

i like K&E and wouldn't jump ship. that doesn't mean i can't complain and be annoyed when they choose to be selfish. and if you haven't notice, associates like to complain and should as much as they want deal with it.

So to get this straight:

On the one hand, Orrick raised rates and fired a bunch of people. And on the other, Orrick is freezing salaries and only giving bonuses to people who met an hours requirement?

And to top it off, that firm has had its associates crowing for so long what a great firm they work at. I wonder how it feels like to get thrown under the bus by the "good firm".

Orrick is a joke.

80 - Kudos to you for your excellent saving skills. If we're assuming about 150k in debt, that means you've saved or put toward loans 225k of your take home income over 3 yrs. First three years' income, assuming nominal lockstep bonus is about 600k, take home about 360k. So in order to achieve what you've done (and are aiming to do), one must live on 45k after-tax/yr, about 3750/mo. Sounds doable if one is disciplined.

80 and 88--

undoubtedly the same person. Sorry, the same jackass.

if a single major NY firm announces a salary freeze, the other NY firms will fall all over themselves to do the same thing. let's hope that first domino does not fall....

81-83 (a.k.a. 75): I guess the answer to my TTT question is "yes"?

The analogy doesn't make sense. A law-student/associate "fawns over" PPP because one day he will make partner and get a lot of money. A turkey has no such upside w.r.t. Thanksgiving dinner.

Now that I think about it, the only way the analogy makes sense is if your professor was indeed dispensing such advice to TTT students, who have no prospect of making partner, and thus are more closely in the role of the turkey.

Suck a dick,
79

"Is this move by Orrick an attempt to stave off even more layoffs?"

ELIE,

YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING IDIOT I WANT TO JUST HIT YOU OVER THE HEAD REPEATEDLY!!!

THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MONEY GRAB BY GREEDY, RICH ASS PARTNERS. THEY REAP THE REWARDS OFF OUR BACKS WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD, MAKING $2M+ A YEAR, AND THEN WHEN TIMES ARE TOUGH THEY TAKE MONEY OFF OUR FAMILIES'S TABLES SO THEY CAN MAKE AN EXTRA $50K-$100K APIECE, OR ABOUT 2.5%-5% OF THEIR **ALREADTY** RIDICULOUS TAKE-HOME AMOUNTS.

THIS IS GREED PURE AND SIMPLE BY THE PARTNERS. AS IF THESE MOVES WILL HELP THEM AVOID ANY LAYOFFS. IF THEY WERE GOING TO OR NOT, THIS MOVE WILL NOT CHANGE THE PREDETERMINED APPROACHED THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN.

I LOVE MY JOB! IM AN "ASSOCIATE" WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD, BUT SUDDENLY WHEN TIMES ARE BAD I BECOME A "PARTNER" AND HAVE TO SHARE IN THEIR "LOSSES."

LET'S SEE WHAT PPPs ARE THIS YEAR. PROBABLY DOWN ~10% AT THE WORST!!

88,

The bulk of my loans (which started around 65k) are federal loans with a fixed interest rate around 1.7%. I'll always be able to earn more than that in a savings account and will never pay more than the minimum The loans I'm paying off are private loans. I started with around ~65k and now have ~30k. Paying off 35k in 3 years isn't real tough, especially if you get some bonus money each year.

Saving a lot isn't really hard either. I save $15.5k every year in the 401(k). After that deduction and taxes, I take home around 8,000 a month. $1,700 goes to rent, 1,400 to loans and 2,500 - 3,000 a month goes into savings. After that, I've got around $2000 a month to dick around with. Add in the bonus money you're not spending on loans and the interest you get on your savings, and you can save $50K a year without too much discipline. My pay goes up every year, but my expenses basically stay the same.

The longer you can stay on the biglaw treadmill, the better off you are for the future.

VE VANT ZE MONEY LEBOWSKI!!!!!!!!!!

really stupid question from someone w/ no fncl expertise -- what's the benefit of a 401k over, say, just investing yourself???

With a 401(k) you still choose how the money is invested. The biggest difference is that you get to invest the money pre-tax. Taxes are only collected on your inclome and the capital gains when you withdraw the money (which you have to do after the age of 59). This increases your returns dramatically.

Say you earn 10K. If you invest it in your 401(k) pretax at a modest 7% interest rate, it'll be worth $113,000 in 35 years. If you take the money post tax, you'll only get $6,000. Invested at the same 7%, you'll only have $68,000 after 35 years. In fact, you'll probably have less than that, because you'll have to pay taxes on at least part of that income.

95- Taxes. Contributions to a (regular) 401(k) are tax deductable and income earned on investments in a 401(k) is not taxed, instead you are taxed only on the amounts you withdraw at retirement. With a Roth 401(k) contributions are not tax deductable but withdrawals are tax-free (including the income earned on the initial contributions).

thank goodness the firms are finally coming to their senses. there is no work for the associates and pay needs to be frozen or cut significantly.

biglaw is still way, way too big. sad to say, but we were all bush pwn3d.....

apparently 96 never studied math. Assuming the same tax rates today and in the future, you are indifferent between 1) paying taxes now and investing the remainder, and 2) investing your money now and paying tax on everything later.

based on your example, i.e. your 40% tax rate, your 113,000 in 35 years is 67,800 after taxes. . . the same as you would have if you paid taxes and then let the money grow tax free.

A traditional 401k is beneficial only if you are going to be at a lower tax bracket in the future.

A traditional 401(k) is also beneficial for a lot of people because they get matching dollars (to an extent) from their company. Generally doesn't apply to attorneys, but that's part of why the general worker is very aped on the idea.

88- my wife and I live on less than that in Manhattan. Are we living in the lap of luxury? Certainly not
Are we working like dogs in biglaw? yes
Will we be able to move to a nice 3rd tier city in 4-5 years (when we undoubtedly get passed over for partner) , get-lifestyle jobs, be debt-free, and have well over half a million in the bank?
absolutely.

97- aren't regular Roth contributions treated the same as 401ks? (ie not taxed when saved but taxed at withdrawal)

also, I thought there was a way to get a decent deduction for Roth contributions?

97- aren't regular IRA contributions treated the same as 401ks? (ie not taxed when saved but taxed at withdrawal)

also, I thought there was a way to get a decent deduction for Roth contributions?

(sorry hit submit before reading over)

Folks - get an accountant. What you spend in his/her fees you will more than make up in the financial missteps s/he helps you avoid.

Don't listen to 99 - who should take his/her own advice and "study math." W/ a 401K you can invest more capital now since you don't pay tax on it (so if you earned 10K you could invest it all, versus only having 6K to invest if had to invest after taxes at the hypo 40% tax rate . . .so you are going to make money on that extra 4000 over time.) Plus, I believe it will be treated a long term capital gain which is only taxed at 15% (?) much less than your normal income tax rate.

99, that assumes you are in the same tax bracket when you retire. You probably won't be when you have zero income other than whatever investments you have as opposed to working in BigLaw.

The upside is your money will grow better in a 401(k) because of the tax benefit. The downside is access -- investing it on your own means you have all that money at hand relatively quickly without penalties.

Seriously -- if there was no actual tax benefit to having a 401(k), they wouldn't exist. My financial advisor gets jack nothing out of me investing in my 401(k), but it was always the first thing out of his mouth - "are you maxing out your 401(k)?"

LATHAM REEKS OF FROZEN SALARIES AND HOTTT SCROTTTUM.

92 (and others complaining about salary freezes),

I am willing to bet my life you are no more than a 4th year associate. Around the 4th year, there is a "switch" that goes on that makes people like you suddenly realize what's really going on here. It's not about you.

108, so true, for me that switch happened to me when I realized that it's all about YOUR MOM.

73,

lol @ Irell and Susman being great places to be a lawyer. I'll concede that you'll get slightly more substantive work at those firms. But you bill bat-shit-crazy hours and those firms are very concerned with PPP. At least for Irell, the firm today really isn't that different from your traditional biglaw factory. They have an incoming class of 25 and on average 3 of them make partner.

Also, Irell, Susman, and Munger are in TTT locations imo (i.e. LA and Houston)

C'mon fools. I came to biglaw to meet some ugly, rich ho whose daddy that's gonna hook my ass up. You best believe you shouldn't be here for the money. I suggest you keep your eyez on the prize in 2009.

-- Big (Law) Pimpin'

To 99: I believe that your numbers are accurate only if both:

as has been pointed out, the tax rates are the same now on regular income and 35 years from now on 401(k) withdrawals and

gains on the after-tax investment are not taxed, which I do not believe is true on non-tax-advantaged investments.

If I recall, a 401(k) investment and a ROTH 401(k) investment are equivalent if tax rates are the same now or at the time of withdrawal, but either should be preferable to a straight investment with no special tax benefits.

Even though Orrick is paying the full bonus, what percentage of associates have actually hit the magic 1950 mark? Of those getting the bonus, how many will make it to the February 15 payday?

You guys just keep on sucking that partner cock, while they bitch and whine about this, that, and the other goddamn thing that's totally irrelevant or not within your role on the matter. Have another soda/candy/burger--stay a few more hours, too.

You keep on eating that that shit right up with what's left of your youth and health running out like the shit-lube leaking from your ass after "bonus" announcements. Keep on stressing, worrying, having no life, never seeing the fucking sun--just so you can pay down loans with the half you get after you pay 50% of your income to the government so someone's babydaddy can buy some new nikes and a flat screen that's nicer than yours.

You are all a bunch of fucking chumps.

108 - What really is going on here? Enlighten us.

Just what 114 went on a psycho rant about, 115.

401(k) are always a good deal - that 50% decline in the SP did not really happen, right you f*cking f*cktard?

pay off your God damn debt before putting money into the ponzi scheme called the market....

116 - yeah, that sounds about right. Too bad associates are total bitches...trust me because I am one. I don't mind it thought, as long as I "gets paid" and don't have to live like a fucking loser.

I wonder if the gravy train will ever run out on some people though...there are some people I work with that I can't believe got hired and manage to stay employed. Hopefully they will get canned so other associates can stop taking hits on salary and bonus.

Time to toally clean house if you ask me.

80/93: Good for you. And lucky for you that your gf thinks the same way!

Signed,
Someone also trying to pay off loans ASAP

Maybe a stupid question: Does it make any sense to pay off government loans on an accelerated basis? I understand the private ones, since coonceivably the interest rates could shoot up, but given how low the interest is on the government loans, I don't see any upside in paying those off fast, just given the expected rate of inflation (i.e. pay them off later with cheaper dollars).

Am I off base? I know a few people at different firms who talk about dropping their entire bonus on the government loans and I just don't get it.

Also, its impossible to tell what any of the non-lockstep firms pay anyone in bonus. Everyone who says firms should move away from lockstep are either (a) douchbag, gunner associates or (b) greedy partners who want to pay less and say they pay more. We're associates for 8 years and that's not a long time. Paying everyone the same is a good way to build collegiality and (more importantly) a diverse practice.

120 - pay off your debt. You never know when the paychecks will stop coming in.

Most, if not all, big NYc firms have already told their associates what salaries are for next year, and I'd be surprised if they froze now. Remember these are the firms that had already budgeted for the full-skadden bonus structure and then clipped it once Cravath showed its ass.

121 failed Economics 101. Pay it off over 30 years if that's what it takes. Once you have consolidated at a low rate, pay the minimum each month and put the rest in an interest bearing account. Time value of money. You can always pay out of your accumulated savings and have interest to spare should the "paychecks stop coming."

Not only should you consider the time value of money, but look at the relevant interest rates at play. If you have fed loans locked in at a low rate and there's a savings vehicle that will pay you a higher rate...you'd be throwing money away by paying down the fed loan on an accelerated basis. If you locked in a few years ago at 2.75% or so, you don't have to look very far to find CDs or money market funds that will pay better.

I wish lawyers as a group would recognize that we tend to have shit for brains when it comes to dealing with money. This is why we have accountants and financial planners - pay them, use them, quell the need to apply your harebrained "you never know when the paychecks will stop coming in" logic.

117, you know that you can choose not to invest in stocks in a 401(k), right? If you find stocks too risky, all plans allow you to invest in Treasury bills or bonds or sometimes money market funds, you know?

You must be a financial genius. With your intelligence, politeness and ability to not go off with the f-word every time you disagree with someone, you must be a blast at parties.

96, if you take into account that the 7% is taxed outside a 401(k), then that $6,000 after 35 years becomes a whopping $33,000 compared to $79,000 ($113k after tax) for a 401(k).

50 = tool, and he's a good cocksucker, he loves to take loads of cum, when u fuck him up the ass he'll moan for Kirkland like a bitch in heat.

So maybe working at a relatively un-leveraged Texas firm with a PPP of just under a million might not be a bad idea?

128 again, sorry, correction, PPP is slightly OVER $1million

Orrick no-offered me during the summer, and I know I'm not the only one. I heard of several people who were no-offered for reasons beyond their comprehension -- more than once without any warning until their last week.

Good thing I'm going to a firm that isn't laying anyone off or freezing salaries.

this sucks. at least my unemployed friends in finance already made their millions (that's right, multiple years of 7 figure bonuses for peeps barely over 30) and are pretty much set to ride this thing out. what did we get when the times were good and partners were doubling their profits? an extra 20-60k a year? now that times are bad it's layoffs and payfreezes? i'm not seeing the benefits of the supposed stability of law. bschool schmuckery here i come.

86, from a guy with a green kool-aid mustache, you're right.

The firm felt different after the layoffs- after we knew layoffs were on the table- even if relatively few attorneys were let go.

And none of us saw this pay freeze coming. Total ambush. I was just sitting and billing, saw a note from Ralph with the high importance icon, and read far enough to utter "f- you, Latham" (because we never would have done this if the firm we're trying to grow up to be like didn't do it).

On top of layoffs, this just felt bad. I guess it will save the firm a lot of money, but it seems like it's already cost them in trust.

And then there's the whole new pay system coming on line in July.

Good luck recruiting, is all I can say. I don't know how the heck busy groups like IP can get new people with all of our pay freeze/layoff trouble, and I'm really at a loss as to how they'll get good laterals to come over once they've got all the midlevels on black-box customized salaries.

But that's not my problem right now. All I can do is hang on and hope I'm still here when the recession dust settles.

Orrick and Latham associates. BOHICA

50

Most people I know at Kirkland, even the most loyal of us, were annoyed by this year's bonuses. This is particularly true of how little payout we received per extra 100 hours, apparently only $2,500.

That being said critics in the firm should realize that Private Equity, one of our 4 core business, is seeing billing declines of more than 30% after three years of significant growth of that group in every office except LA. I do some work which allows me to track the number of active private equity deals being worked on across Kirkland at any time and the number of deals is at levels not seen in 10 years. Bankruptcy has not yet offset this but the return of one of our key rainmakers should help on that front. That being said we better beat Skadden next year!

How long until John Quinn fucks all the Quinn Emanuel associates based on this news? I bet that despite astronomical PPP this year, the firm will freeze salaries because, like a dog licking its balls, it can.

Remember, QE associates. John Quinn was a Cravath man. Where screwing the youngins is an art. You thought you were going to some firm that was different, instead you got the same Cravath-crap in a less prestigious, more obnoxious package.

Don't feel so cocky now, do you?

134

You must be in a specialist group (benefits, environmental etc.). I hear you are all hurting for hours. Good thing IP is carrying the firm atm.

Kirkland has two blind Associates. We may not have above market bonuses but at least we are diverse!

Is Orrick going to promise extra bonus to associates in still-favored areas (eg, patent lit) to make up for this pay cut? If overworked associates were almost fed up anyway wouldn't this push them out the door to Kirkland or Skadden or Quinn or any other shop that hasn't frozen salaries or to a place like Howrey or JD where they can negotiate a better deal? A 10% pay cut is not chump change.

132 - I'm with you. It's frustrating because the only good explanation for this seems to be that the partners are only in it for the short run - looks like they've abandoned any intention of building a great firm.

144 equity partners, PPP of $1.66m in 2007. Over 1100 attorneys, so we can give an estimate of 1056 associates and of-counsel (let's just assume it's hit 1200 and they just forgot to update the stats). If we give a very generous estimate of $20k in savings to the firm per non-equity-partner-attorney, the firm is saving $21.12m next year from freezing salaries, or roughly $147k per partner. The actual figure is likely less, since these numbers were estimated very generously (to the partners).

So, rather than use the current economic crisis as an opportunity to improve its reputation and attractiveness to legal talent, the foundation for becoming a great firm as opposed to a good or mediocre firm, the partners have apparently chosen a less than 10% increase in spending money.

Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly clarifies a few things.

Note to other CA Firms: HOLD THE LINE! Separate yourself from the likes of Lathamites and Orrick! Please, for the love of God, don't freeze salaries. You'll be able to cherry pick recruits for years to come.

I thought NY was TTT. I guess Cali is going FTT.

126,

I don't think that's quite right either. Remember that capital gains are only taxed ay 15%, and then only when you realize those gains. If you buy a stock and hold it for 35 years, you'll only be taxed on the gains at 15% once you sell.

126,

I don't think that's quite right either. Remember that capital gains are only taxed ay 15%, and then only when you realize those gains. If you buy a stock and hold it for 35 years, you'll only be taxed on the gains at 15% once you sell.

137 - go fuck yourself, you piece of shit.

Jesus, Orrick has a leverage ratio of 8x!! I had no idea. That is a fn pyramid scheme if I have ever seen one. Good lord.

For all the kids out here, a ratio of 8 salaried attorneys to 1 equity partner is bad. Very bad. For the associates.

the associaTTTes who think large case BK is going to create a ton of work = teh lulz

the salad days of those practices were driven by easy credit to the DIP - SONNNNN, and those days be long gone

Why does no one realize that bankruptcy is not a very lucrative practice area? Bankruptcy is highly regulated and fees are very closely monitored. Firms can make good money with it, but the profit stream is nowhere near that of many other practice areas. Just because a firm snatches a ton of bankruptcy work, high profile or not, does not mean that its raking it in.

Freshfields decided to freeze quite some time ago. Or you don't care about the Brits.

Be careful where you choose to start your career girls and boys. Right now, firms do not care if you are a Yale law grad with movie star looks and a winning personality (this probably describes 75% of the actual YLS class and about 1% of HLS class - and 10% at the other schools in the top 6-8) as there are NO OPENINGS.

No more kool-aid for me.

It appears that Orrick is the ONLY V50 firm to do BOTH mass layoffs and a pay freeze. Sadly, it also appears that this move was motivated by partner greed and not financial need. Baxter - this cannot be the sign of a great firm.

Law students / laterals don't waste your time considering Orrick. Clearly they do no value their associates.

147- when did this news come down about Freshfields (NYC, not London, I presume)?

-Magic Circle Jerk

Those remaining after the dust settles will have a 50% chance of making partner.

What do you expect from Orrick? Orrick was the first to raise to $160K and everyone had to follow. First Latham, then Orrick and I imagine everyone will follow too....it is only a matter of time. I am holding onto hope (like I would hold onto my balls) that others will not follow, but I am NOT optimistic.

If you want to make a lot of money, don't work as an associate in a big law firm. Be a plaintiff's attorney or start your own business or get an MBA. Associates are the last to get a raise, but also the last to get salaries cut. This job is a safe job for people to make a defined amount of money. $20K up or $20K down isn't really that much each month after taxes. If this was a real job, there would be no such thing as lock-step. In real jobs you get paid what you are worth, not what the dip shit down the hall gets paid. In real jobs, you get options and if the company does well, you do well. That is not how law firms work.

Smartest thing said on this blog: Put your head down and keep billing and don't bitch. Those who survive will thrive.

Why is this news surprising? Orrick is a sweatshop! They overwork the associates and billing just 1950 is never ever enough at Orrick.

Why is this news surprising? Orrick is a sweatshop! They overwork the associates and billing just 1950 is never ever enough at Orrick.

149 = recruiter at competitor firm

well played, 149