Can we get a list of firms that are definitely NOT freezing as well?

When firms are frozen salaries suffer from shrinkage.

Quinn Emanuel is laying off associates. But they are raising.

Pick yer poison.

Akin Gump?

That Sutherland info is misleading. They are giving raises, but they are adding them to the deferred compensation that is paid out at the end of the year for those who bill 1950.

Shearman is freezing, no?

I'm a L&W associate. I can confirm that Latham has NOT committed to bringing associate salaries back up to '08 levels in the event of a turnaround. I asked this question directly to a very senior Latham partner who told me that they are putting off any commitment to bringing salaries back.

This is of course the Latham way--they always wait to see what other firms are doing with pay raises and bonuses to make sure they are always competitive but never lead the market. I suspect that they will also be among the last of the firms that froze salaries to bring them back up--if they bring them back up at all.

yes Shearman is definitely freezing. Confirmed.

4 - How many associates has Quinn Emanuel laid off? Are they stealth? Which offices?

10 - big time rumors of layoffs at QE

Wow, 8, you are pretty stupid for a Latham attorney. Latham always waits around and see what others do to make sure they are competitive? They why were they first to freeze salaries?

Shearman has NOT frozen. However, no salary memo has been sent out yet. We'll find out what the deal is on or before the 15th when the first 2009 paycheck goes out.

RESEARCH YOU STUPID SHIT. REED SMITH HAS NOT FROZEN SALARIES. SO FUCKING ANNOYING.

yeah, what 8 said makes no sense.
but i'm a LW associate as well, and i can confirm that it has sucked hard working here this season.

12 is a racist.

12 - all Latham attorneys are pretty stupid if they are still Latham attorneys.

Latham attorneys to endangered species list!

LATHAM SUCKS. THEY STARTED THIS!!!

Can anyone confirm the Quinn layoff rumors?

if we allow them to freeze salaries, the terrorists win! Why do they hate our freedom?

Whiteford Taylor Preston & Slurpee?

THANKS BUSH!

Firms known to have paid more money than yours:

Wachtell
Skadden

Akin Gump is not freezing.

Put MoFo on the "Slurpee Freeze" list.

Comment removed by moderator.

Gentlemen at my preparatory academy used to receive the same income year after year. Of course, they were getting income from trust funds, but it wasn't a big deal.

I'd rather be a freeze firm that is trying to deal with this than a whistling thru the graveyard firm that will have to do massive junior cuts later this year

26, you idiot, that was kinda funny but a waste of server space in this horrible economy.

Firms that have raised salaries:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Milbank Tweed
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Shearman (disputed?)
Hogan and Hartson

Milbank did not raise.

I thought Hogan was in the "on ice for now" category.

YOU RETARD!!! THE POST SHOULD BE ABOUT FIRMS NOT FREEZING OR AT LEAST INCLUDE THEM

how are the freezing firms going to handle first year salaries? Will first and second years make the same $? or will first years make less than first years did this year?

BINGHAM RAISED

and all those "higher ranked firms" didn't

economy is showing the benefit of having a well diversified firm, i guess

Cal firm Allen Matkins (approx 300 lawyers) did a "slurpee freeze." Associates will be paid same as last year, but if they hit hours, they will receive an extra payment to raise them to what their salary should have been, absent the freeze. Given that real estate is a large part of their practice, I guess it could be worse.

Firms that have raised salaries:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Milbank Tweed
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Shearman (disputed?)
Hogan and Hartson
Bingham
Fish and Richardson
Kenyon & Kenyon

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/12/associate_bonus_watch_hogan_dc.php

Hogan = frozen

Bullshit 8. You may work in L&W's marketing department, but you are not an associate. Always competitive does not mean being the first V20 firm to freeze salaries - that's the very definition of NOT being competitive.

Latham & Watkins - Leading the BigLaw world in layoffs, pay cuts, and douchebaggery since 1990.

Friends don't let friends work at Latham.

seriously lat/kash, 37 has been doing your work for you all day long. Just do a post on those who are raising salaries as normal. how hard is it?

A pay CUT 39, PAY CUT. Each class year is now paid tens of thousands less than they were last year. (You're right though, Latham's bad rep is well deserved, they only really hire douchebags to begin with.)

everyone I've ever worked with from L&W (which has been a lot in my practice area) has been either a) a total tool, b) a d-bag, and/or c) an idiot who thinks he is the shit. it's really, really, really sad.

LW is doing stealth layoffs.

I still don't understand how Latham "cut" salaries. Did they actually reduce the lockstep levels for associates? If a 4th year was making 210k on December 31, and becomes a 5th year on January 1 still making 210k, I view that as a freeze. Unless Latham did something different than that? Can somebody explain the diff to me?

41 = EPIC FAIL. If a firm decided to promote first years to second years at a salary of $165k, instead of the expected $170k, that extra $5k that the promoted associates got is a "pay cut", right?

44 AND ALL YOU OTHER RETARDS. SALARIES ARE BASED ON THE POSITION, NOT ON SOME RANDOM INDIVIDUAL. IF THE POSITION IS PAYING 10k, 20k or 25k LESS THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR, IT IS A PAY CUT.

how GD hard is it to understand? yes, i get that any given person is not making LESS than last year, but that's not the point. It's not even close.

45, yes, and yes you are a retard. seriously, this isn't a difficult concept. If you promote the vice president to a president but cut the president's salaries by 10%, it's NOT a pay cut? Retard.

46, answer 44's question. Is a raise from $160k to $165k a "pay cut"?

A friend of mine interviewed at Latham in Orange County through OCI and said his very first interviewer at the callback was such a douche, so far over the top, that he wanted to leave right then, but finished out the day, then ordered an outrageous meal and got hammered at his post-interview dinner with the partners because he knew he was not going to accept any offer from them anyway.

45: once a normal associate becomes a second year, their salary is not $160,000--it's $170,000. Saying that it's only a pay "freeze" ignores the fact that the associate is doing the job of a second year (which normally has a salary of $170k) for $10k less than they'd been promised upon joining. The associate didn't just do work and collect salary their first year: they put in time and effort to become a better, and better compensated, lawyer.

Now the firm gets a better lawyer for a lesser lawyer's salary. That's a pay CUT.

Yes. you are comparing apples to oranges.

48: yes, it is, assuming one is advancing to a position that was promised to them at $170k.

26's post was funny at first, but now its annoying---can it please be removed?

46, 49, 50, and 51 are all right. Calling this a "salary freeze" is the worst thing ATL has ever done for associates (aside from it being incorrect).

I have to agree with 53, actually. That was several feet of "Skadden" too many.

Sorry 'bout that.

-26

50, 52, where was it "promised" that you'll get $170k after a year?
The only thing known was that second years at the time made $170k. Who received an offer letter saying that the current first years would make $170k after a year?

Ok kids, we can stop arguing about whether it's a freeze or a cut. How about this - Latham is negatively adjusting compensation vis-a-vis previously set expectations and what each class year was paid in prior years.

We all know what it means - the people who are shouting cut are making the point that freeze is not sufficiently descriptive in the negative - on December 1, people were expecting adherence to a well established salary schedule that would have them get a raise on Jan 1.

Many of them were probably counting on that money to buy a car, make a mortgage payment, or pick up a little something for the missus. Then the firm decided to adjust salaries downward so as not to give that raise, a raise which they had been led to believe was coming by a previously established salary scale based on class year.

Both "freeze" and "cut" are fair descriptions. Let's move on.

56 - you are missing the point (and it was 52s fault for distracting you with the shiny baby candy). There was no "promise". The fact is that the salary for a given position changed, hence it is a "pay cut". Broken promises are irrelevant. If you are saying there was no promise but acknowledge the salary is lower, you are acknowledging there was a pay cut.

well put, 57

why the conflicting info on shearman?

57 - they are not the same. they mean two different things. Do you want us to agree that 0 and -10 are the same number? This isn't a semantic argument, and if you think it is, you are simply a bad lawyer. That's all. Feel free to stop posting if you can't understand the difference.

42:

Totally agree. Last Latham associate I met was through a friend who ran into her on the street and all she kept talking about was how much she worked and how great it was to work so much since she loved her job. She is my benchmark for biggest loser ever.

58, let's say the government raised GS-13 from $110k to $130k, and I switch from my $160k biglaw job to take that position. Since you are supposed to look at positions and not at the person, I took a pay raise and not a "pay cut", right?

Morgan Lewis hasn't announced 2k9 salaries.

63: Are you serious? This is how your brain works? If GS-13 moved from 110 to 130k it was a raise there. If your first year job at biglaw didn't change, there was neither a raise nor a cut. You can't possibly be a lawyer.

Milbank has not confirmed a pay raise (yet), so they should not be included on the list.

63 is either a troll, or the most aggressively stupid human still alive.

63 - you are saying YOU took a pay cut, not that there was a pay cut (or raise) at your law firm (which you didn't mention). This isn't a difficult concept.

I am an S&S associate - no announcement yet, but we will do whatever NY market is (which looks to be salary increases by class year as normal). I think people are assuming salaries are frozen because our first Jan. paycheck was at 2008 salary levels, but that's always how it works - the first paycheck is for work completed in the prior year at the prior year's salary, and raises always kick in Jan. 15.

65, so you're saying _I_ took a pay raise when I moved from $160k to $130k?
Because only if you say yes can you argue that Latham associates took a pay cut.

Hey 63, we told you to pay attention to the position, and here you are talking about yourself again. What do you have to do with the two positions you mention?

71, simple question. Did Latham associates suffer a pay cut or pay freeze?

61, this year's salary + 0 and this year's salary for the next year up - 10 ARE the same number. Grow up. It's a freeze for each individual lawyer's pay, and a cut in pay for each position level - everyone understands. This is not rocket science, and it's silly to fixate on.

Seyfarth Shaw has not frozen pay...

68, let's say I am a Latham associate. Did _I_ suffer a pay cut or pay freeze? This is not a hard question.

Latham sucks balls for doing this to us.

70: do you understand the difference between saying "I am a man" and "that is a man"? Or "that is a dog" and "I bought a dog" or anything "x" and "x solely as it relates to me?"

DLA Piper sucks just as big of balls for following suit.

46, it's not a "cut" if you never had it in the first place. Also, you are sorta off to the extent you equate class years with "positions". They are not. They are just ways of categorizing people, and this year the next category did not go up in comp. like it has in the past 2 years. It's a moving target, babe.

77, let's say we have second-year Latham associate X. Did X experience a pay freeze or pay cut? Do you understand that simple question? Because that is how the issue is framed, despite your hilarious efforts to fixate on the position and not on the people.

Funny, but it looks like all the NYC-firms are the place to be right now.

Real question, do next year's first down get a lower starting slary and everyone else continues up the scale, just a year behind the non-freezing firms?

who gives a shit whether Mr. A or Mrs. B makes the same this year as last year? All we care about is the salary chart for biglaw lawyers. and this year, it is less than last year. it's that simple. It's DIFFERENT than actually regressing a given individual's salaries (especially when promotion to a new position and hourly rate still has been lockstep). The question is not "is bob making less than he did last year"; it is "did Latham cut fourth year associate salaries by 25k".

And 73, of course 0+10-10 is 0. What does that prove? The starting point here is 10, not 0.

Everyone, just stop egging 80 on. He clearly doesn't get it and probably never will.

79, positions are also "just ways of categorizing people."

HTFH

80 - to answer your "simple" question, a second year latham associate made 170k in 2008. in 2009 a second year latham associate will make 160k. I don't know how these statements could possibly be misconstrued.

Don't call it a pay cut, because it is not. A pay cut is a decrease in compensation, not a failure to raise compensation to an expected higher level. You expected to get a raise. Your expectation was based on the experiences of other lawyers in prior years. It may have been a reasonable expectation, but that's all it was. There was no promise. There was nothing in your offer letter. You don't have a written employment agreement promising you compensation of any kind. What's more, any salary memos previously distributed by your firm probably didn't specify salaries for "first-years," "second years," etc., it probably specified "class of 2007," "class of 2006," etc., so it was based on particular graduating classes, not purely on seniority. All you had was an expectation.

You may argue that you're "due" for the raise or that you "should" get it because you're more experienced, more productive, more knowledgeable, etc. compared to last year. It doesn't matter one bit. It sucks, but life ain't fair. Thousands of Americans are looking at reduced hours and layoffs in 2009 even though they are more knowledgeable, experienced and productive compared to one year ago. You're merely not getting a raise. It sucks, but keep it in perspective. And stop calling it a pay cut, because it is not.

80: the person, now a second year, is doing a different job (at least at my firm) than they were in the previous year. They're being paid less than that new job and its different/added responsibilities paid before. They took a pay cut in the sense that they're working more for the same money.

If you were suddenly told to increase your billed hours by 25% for the same pay, you think you'd claim you didn't take a pay cut? With salaried employees, it's never just about the dollar figure.

Sidley is conducting economic layoffs of associates in both New York (no surprise) and Chicago. We all know it, but not the hard numbers. Any one here have accurate info?

85, it's amazing you failed to answer the simple question. Did X experience a pay freeze or pay cut?

I would argue Sutherland's solution is the best of these "salary freeze" bad options. If you make hours you get everything at the end of the year. Under any other of the "freeze" options out there, the associates have no guarantee of making up the lost money once their salaries are unfrozen - maybe the firms make up the lost money in bonus, maybe not. Under Sutherland's option, you lose the time value of the money for the period they hold it. Still, I would take this over the permanent freeze and the wait and see approach.

86 - what 85 said. And no one is denying that it sucks, but this has nothing to do with expectations. It's simply disingenuous to deny that law firms are paying the same seniority level less than they did last year. Do you deny that?

from what I understand, Latham's summer class is like 20% of previous years (e.g. 2007). Granted those classes were huge, but still, its quite a drop off.

87, see last paragraph of 86.

Has Echert Seamans Philly froze?

Buffet on Madoff: Only when the pool water dries up do we see who is swimming naked [or even without a hide].

89, you really are an idiot. no one is talking about person "X", we are talking about second year latham associates. do you understand that you are having a different conversation than everyone else?

I confess that I know a guy who used to be at Latham and who is not a tool. He was the exception though, he was in an overseas office, and he left as a midlevel.

96, except for the curious fact that everyone else is talking about person "X" which is why most people and ATL are calling it a pay freeze and not a pay cut.

96, no it is you people who insist on calling it a "pay cut" that are having a different conversation than everyone else. Get a clue, idiot.

Comment removed by moderator.

32 is correct and 38 lacks reading comprehension skills. Hogan is currently evaluating salaries (i.e., waiting for another DC firm to set the market). We will find out for sure once salaries are paid at the end of the month.

Q:What has four legs, runs and says "ho de do! ho de do! ho de do!"?

Comment removed by moderator.

Man, if firms like Dechert, Morgan Lewis, and Holland Knight are raising, and my firm decides not to raise, I'm going to be so peeved.

one hundred and ONE

I'm a rising 4th yr and man am I sad about the 25k I just got jobbed out of. Why are dumbass first years not taking a cut in their expected pay? They expected 160 and are coming in at 160. I expected 210 and will be making 185. Also, what's with the slimey managing partners trying to get credit with clients for "freezing" their billing rates (meaning not raising what's charged for each class level) and trying to equate that with the salary cuts for each class level of associates?

Comment removed by moderator.

Come on guys, I'm sure you can understand the irritation of the "pay cut" people - people were expecting a raise based on the pay scale from last year and the year before, and that pay scale has been reduced. This is both a "cut" and a "freeze."

No reason to harsh about this point - stay focused on what cocksuckers Latham are for pushing this. Latham war stories anyone?

PEOPLE! It's very easy:

Salaries are being frozen.

Salary levels are being cut.

102-103: Kill self. Then killself again. Repeat until satisfied with result.

Firms that have raised salaries:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Milbank Tweed
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Shearman (disputed?)
Hogan and Hartson
Bingham
Fish and Richardson
Kenyon & Kenyon
Crowell & Moring

What about judicial clerks who just started? They were promised salary credit yet will be making the same as those who didn't clerk. Also, what if a clerk's offer letter stating that they would make $170,000 starting January 1?

I have also heard that Sidley is conducting economic layoffs, but partners are keeping numbers very close to the vest .Somebody squeal.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

Why should outdoorsy women convert to Islam?

Camping trips are much easier when you are always wearing a tent.

112 - Tough Shit.

Comment removed by moderator.

For everyone bitching about a "pay freeze" (or "pay cut" for the math-impaired), what do you prefer?

A) layoffs
B) pay freeze / pay cut

If you answer A, then you are probably too junior to have been at a firm that had layoffs in 2001-2002. Layoffs truly suck for everyone, even those who survive. The firm will never feel the same. Ever. Be careful what you wish for.

Comment removed by moderator.

119 is correct. The words fall on the ears of deaf, spoiled children whose lives began the day they began working at their firm jobs.

Comment removed by moderator.

I can confirm that B I N G H A M raised

122 = PIG.

Oink, oink, pig.

Some of you have figured out that you are talking past each other.

I won't say any more so as not to get caught up in the argument. However, I urge those who still feel strongly to seriously consider the possibility that the arguments being made by both sides really are about different thing.

think. about. it. . . . . think, hard.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

Mofo has slurpee frozen. And given how they lauded Latham, and now Orrick, undoubtedly, they'll pull the trigger.

100, 102, 103, 107, 114, 115 --
Sometimes those who post on ATL deride loser firms as TTT. Wherever you work, that doesn't really seem to fit the bill -- more like KKK, maybe.
But I've got one for you:

Q -- What do you call an African American in the White House?
A -- Mr. President.

I don't hear you laughing, son. But then again, there's an old line about that.
He who laughs last --
is very slow at catching on.

122 et al. = future autoadmit lawsuit defendants who will have to grovel with a black or jewish judge to keep their identities secret =)

129, President George W. Bush is an African-American?

Fried Frank is freezing salaries (of the "solid ice" variety).

Comment removed by moderator.

It's getting very, very coldddddddd at Fried Frank DC.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

Fuck Latham and all you racist scumbags.

Holds up slurpee for Kash.

Holland & Knight has raised? Says who?

PLEASE DO A "TOP OF MARKET" PAYSCALE POST, NAMING THE TRUE NY ELITE FIRMS. promoting icebox firms only skews perception of what's "market" downward. it's time for the leaders to leave the losers out in the cold.

Didn't Latham win the most-desirable-firm-to-work-for in a 2008 ATL survery (or something similar to that effect)? Can someone link the ATL post ?

Regarding SUTHERLAND, 6 and 90 are right...not frozen, just deferred. Sutherland already holds a portion of its full comp back until year end, and pays 100% of it if you hit 1950 hours (including pro bono), and a pro-rata portion for anything between 1800 and 1950. The raise is being dumped into the deferred portion. So... not ideal, but better than freeze, or of course, layoffs. Not sure how the classes that don't have a deferred portion are faring...that part was omitted from the memo.

COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR

LATHAM _CUT_ SALARIES FOR ASSOCIATE POSITIONS. THE PREVIOUS SALARY FOR THE POSITION OF SECOND YEAR ASSOCIATE WAS $170,000. THE NEW SALARY FOR THE POSITION OF SECOND YEAR ASSOCIATE IS $160,000.

Hey moderators - why not delete the 23/26 dipshit posts that make my scroll wheel ache.

Comment removed by moderator.

119, 121, don't forget that some firms may freeze salaries AND do layoffs. It's not an either-or proposition and associates who are upset about what is in some instances an expected $25,000 salary increase aren't short-sighted for complaining about it.

64: Morgan Lewis has not announced salaries for 2009 but it has sent letters to 90% of its clients advising them that while rates per class year won't be increased the customary 3-8% over last year, associates who are promoted to the next year will be billed at a higher rate. If ML is charging clients higher rates for the 5th year who just became a 6th year and not passing that on to the associate, both the associates and clients are going to be pissed.

131 --
Who? That name sounds kind of familiar. Must have heard that name somewhere, sometime. Just can't seem to remember it, though. Oh, yeah, I've got it now -- that guy who kept telling us that our economy would do a lot better if we just got the government out of the way and let some private sector guys from Texas show us what they could do. Pretty convincing demonstration, huh?
Maybe as associate from DLA Piper, Latham & Watkins, Orrick, Reed Smith, Sheppard Mullin, Sonnenschein, or Squire Sanders would know who he was. Or maybe you could ask one of those non-equity partners from Kirkland & Ellis, or somebody from Thelen Reid, Heller Ehrman or Thacher Proffitt & Wood. Maybe one of them might know who he was.
-- 129

Comment removed by moderator.

129, I'm not sure what is your point. Are you trying to tell me that the President is not George W. Bush, or that George W. Bush is African-American?

Firms that have raised salaries:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Milbank Tweed
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Shearman (disputed?)
Hogan and Hartson
Bingham
Fish and Richardson
Kenyon & Kenyon
Crowell & Moring
Covington

So let's see...Sutherland is probably the one 'slurpee freeze' firm that's most likely to actually revisit and pay out the bump, and Kash blows it by putting them in the 'solid freeze' camp. Wrong, and wrong. Should be slurpee with an asterisk.

Comment removed by moderator.

151 --
George W. Bush might indeed be the punch-line to a joke, but not that one.
And the joke that was George W. Bush is on us.
-- 129

Baker Botts has raised salaries.

This is a freeze not a cut. If you end up making less than what you currently make, then that is a cut. If you end up making the same as what you currently make and such decision is widely disseminated, then it is a freeze. If you make less than what you expected, then that's SOL. You overestimated your worth vis-a-vis market forces. Experience, knowledge or whatever is irrelevant; market pays based on supply and demand. Supply of hot, fresh, naive, smart and well-credentialed bodies greatly outnumber the demand, either via lateral or OCI. Only thing making the firms act the way they are is due to the perceived damage to its reputation or loyalty to its workers, both of which are an emotional response. You can see that certain firms have already decided which factors are more important to them.

Maybe inflation should be considered in the cut/freeze argument?

Comment removed by moderator.

Anybody know yet what's going on with Baker & McKenzie in the US -- freezes/cuts or normal lockstep raises?

Okay all you jobless fucks, biglaw associates surfing the net during the day telling lies to your friends that "you're busy", and everyone else.... get your sorry asses in the bed.

Dear ATL - Raises as expected ARE NEWS when major firms such as Latham and Orrick are freezing salaries. A roundup of firms that have raised salaries would be appreciated because it highlights who the market leaders are - and puts pressure on firms that have not announced their decisions.

161 - some of us are in Cali, where it's only just after 930pm - is that past your bedtime?

@163: Yes. Yes, it is. Now get in the fucking bed, before I come upstairs and show you why I named you pillow biter!

This is the MAGIC MATH that firms have been pulling for years to boost their profits. Most years the firm increases its rate scale without increasing the pay scale. The pay scale has only changed 3 times since 2000 (125 to 135, 135 to 145, 145 to 160), while the rate scale has increased EVERY YEAR BY 5-8%!

EG:

2008 2d yr costs 300/hr + 2009 2d yr costs 300/hr = rate freeze

2008 2d yr is paid 170k + 2009 2d yr is paid 160k = pay freeze

The "freezing" works out much better for the firm

Comment removed by moderator.

25 and 128, where did you get the idea that MoFo is freezing? Nothing has been announced yet.

Truth be told - George W. Bush should not be burdened with 100% of America's woes. Yes he started the war, yes he is lazy and yes he is incompetent. But, the financial problem we face today started with the housing market and the securities backed by such assets (poster child of deregulation stemming back to Cold War), based on the presumption of: "we only have certain amount of dirt on earth and the population is increasing, so there's less dirt for all of us when a baby is born or a person immigrates, so the housing price must always increase since our population is increasing." This faulty logic was exacerbated by incompetent attorneys at CWT, TPW, MB, Sidley, MN and others, who didn't give a damn about due diligence. Their collective conclusion was crystallized by ratings agencies. When truth finally caught up, the inflated value adjusted (deflated) to its true value, destroying wealth.

For all attorneys involved in debt or equity issuance - understand your responsibility to this society: you CREATE wealth when you issue such securities. You may not fully understand this concept for another 20 years, but when you fuck up, you DESTROY expected wealth which creates havoc on our economy.

158 -- Considering inflation might not affect the discussion much, since deflation is what we actually seem to be experiencing these days. Go ask one of those guys you know who went to business school instead of law school how big the bonuses were at Lehman Brothers this year. Ask one of your clients who works for ExxonMobil how the price of oil has held up since last summer. Or maybe ask a Chevy dealer (or a Toyota dealer for that matter) how many cars he's sold for full list price lately.

167 is correct. The announcement just said that a freeze wasn't being ruled out.

167 & 170 = naive sheep. Spread em so I can smell the juicy hymens.

Elie/David: these racist jokes and comments are highly offensive and are totally useless, even under the most liberal standards. Please exercise your power to remove them. I am speaking as a white, heterosexual, affluent male who is patently offended and horrified at the type of people who studying law or practicing.

I can't believe these ATL dumbfucks did a post on who is freezing/cutting salaries.

ATL Readers have been asking for a post on who is NOT freezing salaries.

158, No, not for short term analysis of 2007 vs 2008. It would be nice if IRS gave concessions based on inflation (since you pay taxes on money earned "last year"), right?

Can I ask the ATL collective as to what the purpose of hymen is, in terms of evolutionary utility? Seems like a waste developing nerve and skin tissues there and all for a single-time use... Any brilliant mind care to share the knowledge?

175: your question is a little off topic, but embryonically, a hymen tended to keep germs and dirt out of the vagina. Hence, it may be considered vestigial, akin to an appendix. I'm pretty smart, huh? No, you fucking idiot, I used google. Try it sometime, you dipshit.

Firms that have raised salaries:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Milbank Tweed
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Shearman (disputed?)
Hogan and Hartson
Bingham
Fish and Richardson
Kenyon & Kenyon
Crowell & Moring
Covington
Munger

It is true Reed Smith did not freeze salaries across the board. Associates received either (1) a 5k raise no matter what class level, (2) a salary freeze, or (3) a salary reduction. It appears that if you made your hours (1900) you received a 5k raise, otherwise your salary was either frozen or reduced. Reductions were rare but did take place.

V&E, B&B, BG all raised here in Houston.

PS Don't be worrying about raises. Be worrying about keeping your jobs. The great dying is about to begin. Lots of big companies won't make it through the first half of 2009 and when they go down they'll take everything with them save for some bankruptcy work.

And after the dying and regulations to follow, what salary-capped GC is going to want to see his/her outside lawyers making more than his/her CEO? Not one. No, they'll be looking for value, not overpriced snot-nosed "trial" associates whose only skill is "document review". And that'll mean a return to the "one riot, one ranger" approach instead of the human wave assault popularized by BigLaw. The result? Lots of dimwits with JDs will return to the rice fields and live out their lives as the peasants they were meant to be.

Hope you look good in a smock that reads "How may I help you?"

Actually, I do look really great in a smock (especially from behind). Sweet.

177--Williams & Connolly raised normally.

What is Paul Hastings doing?

Dewey raised as normal.

I think this whole freeze/cut issue is going to be very old news very soon. MASSIVE head count reduction in the associate ranks are coming in all likelihood. Guess top 80% at shiTTTlaw really wasn't supposed to equal biglaw. Darn.

ATL -- WE NEED A POST LISTING THE FIRMS THAT DID NOT FREEZE.

ATL -- WE NEED A POST LISTING THE FIRMS THAT DID NOT FREEZE.

ATL -- WE NEED A POST LISTING THE FIRMS THAT DID NOT FREEZE.

I am also a Shearman associate and 69 is correct. Adding to the confusion is the fact that, normally, our paychecks are dated on or before the last day of any half-month billing cycle (i.e., the 15th and the 31st of the month). The end-of-December paycheck technically went out on Jan. 2, which was obviously at last year's rates, but was already subject to all the 2009 withholdings (including the restarted Social Security). (Interestingly, the direct deposit itself was made on Dec. 31.) Absent a memo between now and then, the January 15 paycheck, due out in a week, will be our moment of truth. That said, if a freeze were in the works (which would deviate from the NYC market), we would have been expected to be told something by now.

But then again, maybe I am overly optimistic.

Firms that have raised salaries in 2009:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Hogan and Hartson
Bingham
Fish and Richardson
Kenyon & Kenyon
Fitzpatrick Cella
Crowell & Moring
Covington
Munger
Dewey
Williams & Connolly

interesting that latham won the "coolest firm" award sometime last year...

187's list is perhaps also aptly described as "fiirms that wish they had given this whole thing some thought...and are now wondering how to maintain PPP in a depression"

Latham War Story (for whoever asked): Senior associates who have built up a bit of a book that they know can be moved away from junior partners are being called 3-5 times a day by headhunters offering HUGE signing bonuses at other firms (those on 187's list). As a junior at Latham, I've been approached by 2 of those senior associates who have indicated they are out the door Feb. 1 after bonuses drop, with their business, and offering to pull a few of us along. If that isn't writing on the wall, I don't know what is. At least I'll be getting a salary bump like the rest of you once I move.

If you are going to be racist, you should at least also be FUNNY.

I'm no tree-hugging liberal and I hate the PC police so I really hate to do this, but the comments in this thread are ridiculous. What do hateful comments regarding Jews, Muslims and Blacks have to do with whether lawyers at big firms are getting their normal salary increases? If you want to post hate-speech there are plenty of sites where you can do that and people will be happy to agree with you. Why do you have to turn this site into an Aryan nation message board?

Ditto to 172

The whole freeze/cut dichotomy is nonsense. I think it's accurately characterized as a freeze because the associate has never made the higher salary, but there's validity in the point that an associate is being billed to the external world at the next level (maybe without a concomiant upward adjustment, but at a higher rate nonetheless) his station in the firm is taking a downward turn. Either way, it sucks and it's unfair, but things like this happen when employers are holding a strong hand.

40 - Reading comprehension:

"[I]f your firm has raised salaries as expected, feel free to send us the news, with the subject "Salary Raise: FIRM NAME." While freezes are news, raises as expected aren't, so we will not be covering firm by firm, but we may do a round-up."

To everyone chiming in about Sutherland, note what Kash wrote:

"Check back tomorrow for more details on both Dickstein and Sutherland."

In other words, she knows that there is more to the Sutherland story (and will be writing about it later).

Shearman freeze announcement drops today.

Dewey raised salaries as expected

192, they post here because they know that they can get a reaction from people. Posting on a site of only like minded people would not get them their desired result. Also, suck it up and stop bitching. If you don't like what they have to say and you don't want to argue with them just ignore it. It takes like 2 seconds to scroll down.

DLA Piper is freezing salaries until 2011.

I'm freezing my heart until Kash proclaims her love for me.

Reed Smith did not freeze salaries for all-- only for some associates-- most litigation associates got a 13-15% raise.

Hey 173: "if your firm has raised salaries as expected, feel free to send us the news, with the subject 'Salary Raise: FIRM NAME.' While freezes are news, raises as expected aren't, so we will not be covering firm by firm, but we may do a round-up."

MoFo has not announced a freeze, just some "we're going to wait and see what the market does" statement. Total BS. The market is split, just tell us if all the talk about the firm being in excellent shape is true and announce the raise. If not, don't point to "the market" and think we're not going to know that you're full of s**t.

HAHAHAH, the post about Bingham being a well diversified firm is still making me laugh. Bingham is shit. Latham is shit too, but those two names dont even belong in the same sentence. And no, I don't work at either. I work where we laugh at firms who think they can compete with us.

To 6, 90, 142, and 153--we don't want to hear what the partners at Sutherland have to say. Please kindly refrain from trying to save face here.

What's with the Mormon banner on the home page to abovethelaw? Not that I have any beef. Some of the coolest people I know are LDS, but this is a pretty jaded group to target.

How did you go through and delete the racist comments (which I approve of!) and leave 116, 118, 120, 135/37??

I think it's time to add the "abuse" tag feature here...

204 is right. MoFo needs to just have some balls and say what they are going to do. I would like to know how much I am being paid for the work I am doing today. Either the firm is doing well enough to give us our raises or it's not, but all this "wait for the market" stuff is bullshit.

There are about 5-10 funny and/or insightful people that post here. The rest would fit in well at Latham apparently.

The many posts about whether this should be called a "freeze" or a "cut" seem to miss the point: there are now (at least) two operative pay scales in biglaw. There is the "old" pay scale, and the "reduced" pay scale. Those working at firms paying at the "reduced" scale are being paid less than associates of the same levels at peer firms. Period. From the standpoint of associate retention, morale and recruiting, this is an untenable situation in the long term - but in the short term (optimistic euphemism for "until this depression ends") it is the way things are. This is a great time for firms paying more cash to poach the best associates from financially weaker firms. If I were a headhunter I would be spamming the associate lists of every single one of these firms ten times a day.

Greenberg raised salaries?? Which offices?

205- no you don't. You work for some chop shop with 6 people in it, and you do your own copies. Now that I think about it, you probably aren't even a lawyer.

Total BS to argue the salary freeze prevents layoffs. I'm at a salary freeze firm and associates are also being asked to leave because their hours are low. Call it whatever you want, asking people to leave because of low hours (and not their work quality, though I understand there is often but not always a connection) is a layoff. Personally, I'd rather see no freeze and layoffs than a freeze and covert layoffs.

Hey everyone, if you think ATL is a helpful resource, please vote for it:

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-law-blog/

How is this a salary "freeze," and not a "cut"?
Consider the following:

When the salary scale went from
145 - 155 - 170 - 190 - 210 to
160 - 170 - 185 - 210 - 230

That's clearly a raise, since each column (representing a class year) saw an increase in compensation.

Now the salary scale has gone from

160 - 170 - 185 - 210 - 230 to
160 - 160 - 170 - 185 - 210

such that every class year (except the stubby first years) has seen a decrease in compensation.

In other words, what some of you are calling a freeze is actually a new salary scale, that's shifted in another direction. The fact that it shifted right around the new year, and shifted down exactly the amount to keep your semi-monthly gross pay the same, is irrelevant.

New lower salary scale = pay _cut_

Hogan has not yet raised salaries. They are waiting to see if they can get away with screwing their associates even more than they did with bonuses - even though the firm was ahead of budget for 2008.

Greenberg raised salaries?? Which offices?

1:28 --- Thanks for the link. I voted.

You can vote once every 24 hours until the contest ends. So everyone should keep voting until it's over next week.

219 - I voted too. For the WSJ. Where stories come out quicker, typo-free, and no one tells me about juicy insides.

They take from us our labor, and reap from that their reward. We demand only compensation that is fair, and we define as fair that which our peers receive for the same efforts.

This day let it be known that we will are in silent revolt. Let your recruiting coordinators know that we will notify every prospective hire that they will be paid less if they work for you. Let your competition know that we are up for sale.

Today is the eighth day of our struggle. Viva la revolución!!

Any news on Ropes & Gray?

They froze staff salaries.

Paul Hastings

196 - when those comments were made, Kash still had Sutherland in the 'solid freeze' list. Obviously, some editing has been done.

As a LW stub, 190 has me worried.

All very interesting, but most everyone is taking a very short sighted view of their employment and wages. In a very few years, it will be time for you all to bring in your own work to justify your own salaries. Work very hard right now to create client relationships that will endure, deal with the pay you receive now, and demand the pay you you want when you are able to take your clients somewhere else. Good luck to you all in this environment.

216,

If you think that this is a pay cut despite the fact that the individual in question is not having his/her pay cut, you are at a level of retardation that one would have thought precluded you from operating a computer. You can't just change the meanings of words because you want to describe something more negatively than the correct description allows. You will never make it.

Any word on Nixon Peabody

228-

Everyone's a winner there.

The cake is a lie!

216, so at firms such as Cravath that are sticking with the old 160/170/185 track, those firms are engaged in a "pay freeze" by your definition?

Do you even know what the words in English mean?

216, so by your definition firms like Cravath that are sticking with the old 160/170/185 scale are engaging in a "pay freeze"?

Do you even know what the words in English mean?

Besides being winners, is there any word of layoffs or pay freezes?

Firms that have raised salaries in 2009:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Hogan and Hartson
Bingham
Fish and Richardson
Kenyon & Kenyon
Fitzpatrick Cella
Crowell & Moring
Covington
Munger
Dewey
Williams & Connolly
Baker Botts
Vinson Elkins

Firms that have raised salaries in 2009:

Cravath
Skadden
Sullivan
Clifford Chance
Dechert
Jones Day
Kirkland
Paul Weiss
Willkie Farr
O'Melveny
Linklaters
Weil
Cahill
Greenberg Traurig
Debevoise
Holland & Knight
Morgan Lewis
Gibson Dunn
Hogan and Hartson
Bingham
Fish and Richardson
Kenyon & Kenyon
Fitzpatrick Cella
Crowell & Moring
Covington
Munger
Dewey
Williams & Connolly
Baker Botts
Vinson Elkins
Bracewell Giuliani

Sources at Arent Fox say salaries will be frozen . . .

Pay raises at White & Case

Pay raises at White & Case!!!

Fried Frank raises woo hoo

Alphabetical list of firms that have raise salaries in 2009:

Baker Botts
Bingham
Bracewell Giuliani
Cahill
Clifford Chance
Covington
Cravath
Crowell & Moring
Debevoise
Dechert
Dewey
Fish and Richardson
Fitzpatrick Cella
Gibson Dunn
Greenberg Traurig
Hogan and Hartson
Holland & Knight
Jones Day
Kenyon & Kenyon
Kirkland
Linklaters
Morgan Lewis
Munger
O'Melveny
Paul Weiss
Skadden
Sullivan
Vinson Elkins
Weil
Williams & Connolly
Willkie Farr

reading this shit makes me think its time for layoffs so we can have something else to talk about

Alston & Bird NYC announced salary freeze on 1/9

Sutherland is a slurpee freeze. raise is in deferred comp.

Which would you rather have the same salary as 2008 or no salary at all? Its time to grow up and accept economic reality. Pay freeze/Pay cut--who cares what you call it? Stop acting like children and get back to work while you still have a job to go to.

Which would you rather have--the same salary as 2008 or no salary at all? Its time to grow up and accept economic reality. Pay freeze/Pay cut--who cares what you call it? Stop acting like children and get back to work while you still have a job to go to.

200 - bs

Katten supposedly had a "banner year" but froze salaries anyway. No word whether the freeze is of the hard freeze or slurpee freeze variety. Katten already let a handful of associates go nationwide, and word is, bonuses will be slashed. All of this would be perfectly acceptable (given this shiteous economy and what not), were it not for the fact that the partners are apparently taking home as much as they took home last year.

247 Why shouldn't the partners take home the same pay? In case you have forgotten, you work for them--not the other way around. If someone is going to take a cut it certainly isn't going to be (nor should it be) the ones who are on the hook if a firm goes belly up. This sense of entitlement among associates is out of control. Grow up and be thankful you have a job to go to.

247 How do you know that partners aren't taking cuts, too? Partners are notoriously close to the vest about their compensation. Profits are down at many firms--and face it , they are waaay down at some firms. If the pie isn't as big as it used to be, the pieces aren't going to be as big either. Associates may not be receiving bonus or raises, but they haven't (a) put in the years, (b) developed a book of business large enough to warrant partnership, (c) made a significant capital contribution, and (d) accepted both the benefits and the liability of partnership----- only to see year end comp go down based upon lower than expected profits. It is time to face the realities of the economic crisis we all face and stop spending everything we earn......and then whining that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that we do receive are not enough. Good grief--grow up.

Katten may have had a "banner" year, but that doesn't mean that the partnership doesn't have to plan for the economic crisis ahead. Cutting costs is prudent to ensure the economic health of the firm in the long run and not just on a year to year basis..

please take comment 116 down...no need for racist jokes on here

247 - it's a business decision. personally, if i were a partner, I would try to keep associates happy (i.e., working for me and not desperately trying to leave for a better firm) while compromising my income only minimally. but also i think all of us associates (except people like 248 to 250) can understand the feeling that at least certain partners might not be earning their keep and should take cuts just like associates seem to be. i think they probably are, but it is a business decision.

249 - very well crafted response. either you are a partner or you are so far up some partner's ass that you smell like poop.

if 249 is an associate, good grief she/he should grow a backbone.

and obviously if profits are down, partners shouldn't take home the same pay 248. fundamental to a partnership is participating in profits and losses of the partnership - one would think, in proportion to something relevent and not the previous year's earnings. associates choose firms based on lifestyle and pay, for a firm to change the pay scale for any reason aside from necessity would be b.s. it would also be counterintuitive for the firm's management. lay-offs and salary freezes negatively impact the integrity of the firm, they can damage the firm's reputation, which could affect future profits and future recruiting. can the katten partners afford that? come on now, katten doesn't even get it's own salary freeze blog on ATL.

Why the freeze? Well, can't speak for other firms, but DLA Piper planned and carried through on an extravagant Partners Retreat in 2008 even though the economy was tanking. An all expence paid week long trip to Barcelona for every partner (US and International) in the firm. Oh, did I mention they could bring their spouse and/or significant other, but they (the partners) had to pay for them...can you say "Expense Reimbursement". Also on the lavish trip there was a cruise, an overnight cruise. All expense paid, except gambling and shopping, but again..."Expense Reimbursement". The total $$'s for this trip would blow... your... mind. Meanwhile the economy is in a free fall. As a result, many thing within the firm went down, layoffs/downsizing of support staff, (I lost a very good secretary) a few associates and partners left themselves. The holiday party was cancelled, but a federally taxed $100.00 was given as a Christmas gift, which equalled $87.00 after taxes. Bonuses (a gift in its own right) were frozen from last 2007 bonus amount. Now the pay freeze for associates. Sorry associates you missed a really, really wonderful Partners Retreat, but hey, now if you work really, really hard you can become Partner, oh by now it is manditory to contribute $150,000 to the firm on top of all of the other required payments you must make. Meanwhile lets look forward to more tighting and cuts. Wonder where is the 2009 partners retreat is going to be.

I am in awe as I read these posts--entitlement, entitlement, entitlement.....what a bunch of whining babies. Be happy you have a job and quit griping about whether or not some partner is making you "happy" and wiping your nose for you. The economy sucks, profits are down and cuts have to be made or you won't have a job to go to. If you don't like your firm step aside (BTW--goog luck finding another job). There are plenty of associates who would be happy to take your place. Put in your years, develop your book of business, make your capital contribution and then and only then can you say whether or not you are willing to cut your comp so that your EMPLOYEE can get a raise. Unbelievable....

Hmm.....Economy sucks. Not enough work. Not enough jobs. Too many attorneys. Too many people not facing reality.

256 - And not enough ASS LOBSTERS!

Guys--you don't know it yet, but your cacophonous drivel isn't enough to keep the dust speck you occupy from being dropped into the boiling oil. I'm guessing all this back and forth about cut vs. freeze is a subconscious attempt to avoid looking at reality. Most of you will be out of a job in the next year or two. The age of the bloated law firm is almost over, and it can't come quickly enough. Most of you are trough feeders, and many of your partners are worthless swine. Sock your money away now, while you have it. Your jobs are fixin to evaporate like everyone else's.

Guys--you don't know it yet, but your cacophonous drivel isn't enough to keep the dust speck you occupy from being dropped into the boiling oil. I'm guessing all this back and forth about cut vs. freeze is a subconscious attempt to avoid looking at reality. Most of you will be out of a job in the next year or two. The age of the bloated law firm is almost over, and it can't come quickly enough. Most of you are trough feeders, and many of your partners are worthless swine. Sock your money away now, while you have it. Your jobs are fixin to evaporate like everyone else's.

Guys--you don't know it yet, but your cacophonous drivel isn't enough to keep the dust speck you occupy from being dropped into the boiling oil. I'm guessing all this back and forth about cut vs. freeze is a subconscious attempt to avoid looking at reality. Most of you will be out of a job in the next year or two. The age of the bloated law firm is almost over, and it can't come quickly enough. Most of you are trough feeders, and many of your partners are worthless swine. Sock your money away now, while you have it. Your jobs are fixin to evaporate like everyone else's.