Cadwalader Profits Per Partner Down 30%
When is a 30% decrease in profits per partner a good thing?
When you still take home $1.88 million during the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”
This morning, AmLaw reported that Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft saw a 30% decrease in PPP, a 13% drop in revenue, … but is feeling pretty good heading into 2009:
Christopher White, though, says the firm is now positioned for 2009 following a series of layoffs in its troubled structured finance practice.“I’d like to think that we put most of our pain in 2008,” White says, adding that the $1.88 million profit number “is not too shabby.”
The drop, while severe, beat previously published rumors that profits per partner would fall 50 percent.
Should all those people CWT fired take comfort that making drastic cuts early in the year probably helped save 2008 for the firm at large? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the not quite as many?
White says it’s wrong to put the focus on Cadwalader’s structured finance side, which, while still large, was shrunken through layoffs last year. “Our financial restructuring people are very busy, parts of our litigation department are very busy, and those are important engines in a downturn,” he says.
What’s next for Cadwalader after the jump.
We reported on management changes at Cadwalader in November. AmLaw reports that the new team could signal a de-emphasis on capital markets. But last week we also reported that bankruptcy bigwigs Bruce Zirinsky and John Bae were leaving CWT for Greenberg Traurig:
Nevertheless, White says Cadwalader will continue to recruit, specifically for its litigation and corporate practices.“I view this as an opportunity to continue to grow and strengthen the firm,” White says. “I hope it’s somewhat evident that while Cadwalader has a very strong reputation in capital markets and structured finance, it’s becoming evident we have strength beyond that.”
Cadwalader has endured massive 2008 associate layoffs, a 30% drop in PPP, and major counter cyclical rainmakers leaving the firm. But the firm is trying to positively spin that pain as “positioning” itself for a strong 2009.
We’ll be sure to keep an eye on that.
THE AM LAW 100: Cadwalader Profits Fall 30 Percent [AmLaw Daily]
Earlier: Musical Chairs: Bruce Zirinsky and John Bae from Cadwalader to Greenberg Traurig
Cadwalader Says Goodbye to Bob Link
(114) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Please check into the layoff situation at Alston & Bird in Atlanta. layoffs reported today
1st!!!
I profit from the extreme sexual prowess of a CWT NY 05 female associate.
Yeah, I check AmLaw Daily for my daily legal business updates too. What's the value added by this site again?
"Should all those people CWT fired take comfort that making drastic cuts early in the year probably helped save 2008 for the firm at large?"
THEY DIDN'T, YOU POOR EXCUSE FOR A JOURNALIST. THEIR SEVERANCE PACKAGES EXTENDED UNTIL THE NEW YEAR!
"Should all those people CWT fired take comfort that making drastic cuts early in the year probably helped save 2008 for the firm at large?"
THEY DIDN'T, YOU POOR EXCUSE FOR A JOURNALIST. THEIR SEVERANCE PACKAGES KEPT THEM ON THE DOLE THROUGH DECEMBER!
Great way to recruit young talent. Fire associates and keep the PPP rolling.
How will the Cadwalader PPP numbers affect the layoffs at Cahill?
5/6 = racist.
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
WHY WHY can't people learn not to click "Post Comment" more than once? It's not difficult. ATL is supposedly read by intelligent Biglaw lawyers.
It's just like law school, when after 3 years people still couldn't figure out how to get the roll sheet passed around the room without missing an entire section. I guess "up one row, down the next" was just too complicated
No report on the earnings drops of SanFran firms? Orrick was down 21%. MoFo down 13%. http://www.legalweek.com/Articles/1196075/Article.html
There is a shocking amount of jealousy toward CWT. Things are improving there at a remarkable clip, and its not fair to let one or two bitter ex-associates who couldn't hack it at one of Wall Street's top firms continue to malign this place. There are a lot of good people here; kind and hardworking partners who only want to run a succesful business, serve their partners and help their associates make a good living. The negative comments prove that the associates at other firms are jealousy because they are unable to secure employment here and have to work for the nasty people at other law firms.
no report on Clifford Chance either. Expecting a 1/3 drop in PPP there.
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=136223&d=415&h=417&f=416
i tried reporting on the alston & bird impending layoffs months ago! nobody listened to me, but now all of you will recognize me as the genius i am!
they hire too many first years from TTT schools like TTTulane!!!!
@14
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
14 - nailed it. all of us "associates at other firms are jealousy" of TTTs.
Wilmer is paying above market bonuses to high billers. But it's a sucky place to work.
If you got trolled by 14 you're weak.
"Should all those people CWT fired take comfort that making drastic cuts early in the year probably helped save 2008 for the firm at large?"
THEY DIDN'T, YOU POOR EXCUSE FOR A JOURNALIST. THEIR SEVERANCE PACKAGES KEPT THEM ON THE DOLE THROUGH DECEMBER!
NY sucks, TX all the way baby.
Yawn. So they only made over a million. Big deal. Greedy partners.
Layoffs at A&B is all rumor.
Why is above the law so obsessed with CWT? You proclaim they aren't market leaders and yet every other post is about CWT and not the actual "Vault" leaders... as if that is really a way to rank law firms for anybody outside of law school, but that is a whole different diatribe for a different day. STFU about Cadwalader already.
24 - sure they are.
3: How do you profit? Do you get repeatedly layed off?
V10 layoffs imminent. Simpson will go first.
The Orrick drop in PPP was due in-part to the costs of taking on 80 partners throughout the year. Half of those came on in the final quarter from which billings will not be collected until 2009.
14 - yeah all the first years they laid off couldn't hack it....
Their bankruptcy and corporate groups got one hell of a start to 09 with Lyondell.
14 - "kind and hardworking partners"
HAHAHAHAHAHA - when I worked there I could go weeks without seeing a partner in the office. They were too busy golfing and flying clients around the world (clients who now cannot give them any business)
You are a f*cking tool - CWT sucks a phat dlck and its BECAUSE of the partners.
Now that I think about it, you probably are one. Go to hell.
30 - You can tell whether an attorney is going to be able to hack it or not within two weeks of their starting as a first year. I think it's generous of Cadwalader to have kept the dead weight on payroll as long as they did.
ABL is obsessed with CWT. From writing about important stuff like layoffs to what we print on law firm t-shirts, ABL cannot get enough of CWT. It's like CWT is the Angelina/Brad/Jennifer of the legal industry (at least in ABL's perspective). My assumption is that ABL gets a lot of hits or reads when it posts a CWT story, and as a CWT associate, I'm glad people want to read about my firm to the extent that a blog feels compelled to write posts on the t-shirts we make for associates and the holiday e-greetings we make for our clients. What other law firm gets that treatment? I prefer to be continuously written/talked about (even if for sensationalism's sake) then totally forgotten or deemed irrelevant like other firms. It seems like you pompous folks can't get enough of this "TTT" firm. You love us--admit it. lol.
word has it there were some layoffs at Cahill. Any news?
Elie, your snide, haphazard, and often outright false commentary seriously undermines any integrity your posts may have otherwise had.
First, your comment about the needs of the many blah blah blah -- did you already forget that the laid off associates were paid severance and benefits through the end of 2008? How is it that those layoffs could have contributed to saving 2008's profits?
Second, your comment about "major counter-cyclical rainmakers leaving the firm" -- really? For the sake of argument, I'll hand you Bruce Zirinsky, but John Bae was not a rainmaker AT ALL. Who else? And how about the monsoon the department just brought in in LyondellBasell?
If you are going to insist in adding the snide commentary, which you always do, and about which I'm not the first to comment, then at least think it through and know what you're talking about.
The rumours of Cadwickertaft's demise have been greatly exaggerated
27 --- Over and over again. I so tired.
33 - yeah when you show up and they pile doc review you and no matter how much begging you do they don't give you any real work that shows you couldnt hack it - this pretty much sums up what happened to most of the cap markets 07 class...keep thinking what you want, your day of reckoning is near...
ABL? ATL? 34 you fail.
CWT restricted its layoffs to incompetent, flat-nosed, nappy headed chimps.
33 - the entire 07 cap markets class without exception couldnt be dead weight.
Nice try CWTer - you just hate your firm and you know it.
loser.
34, what's "ABL"? any news on the CWT dissolution?
CC PPP drops similarly. see http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=136223&d=415&h=417&f=416
Commenter 14 had to have been a joke.
Everyone here knows that the every last associate let go was underperforming and incapable of succeeding as a lawyer. It is common knowledge that the dead weight was just biding their time for a paycheck and a ticket out of law school debt, they had little commitment to the firm or to their clients. Subpar work product was being produced (or not) by every single one of those let go. I applaud the firm for refusing to tolerate the untalented and lazy members, so that those of us that have some loyalty to the partners, have some loyalty to the firm, work hard, dedicate ourselves to CWT and its clients and produce good work are able to keep our jobs.
Those bitter couple of let go associates should have a long hard think about how they could have done better, worked harder and showed a little more loyalty to those men and women that provided them with a comfortable living. A little introspection would be helpful, maybe some of the fired associates would realize it is they who owe the firm an apology rather than the other way around.
Wow. 5/6/21 really put in a lot of effort to make sure his stupid comment posted. He even edited his own rant b/c the first version wasn't shocking enough.
Dork.
When are you going to write something about the Cahill layoffs?
Firms would prosper were it not for the advent of the "diversity committee". PR concerns have forced many of the countries top firms to turn away hard-working, capable white applicants in order to make room for a bunch of flea-ridden, big-butt-having coons. With their wide noses, breathing all the white man's air. They think they're the best dancers and they eat up all the fried chicken.
46 - Wow. Like really WOW.
14-
Jealousy?
The only thing I'm jealous about was that, unlike the my fellow CWT summers, the guy who gave me my cock-punch/offer didn't spit on me as I lay gasping on the ground after he yelled "WELCOME TO THE REAL DEAL"
in all seriousness, CWT was a fucking sweatshop filled with unprestigious striving poorz who were top 5% at some TTT JD pyramid scheme. and Bob Link was the poster-child for everything crappy in the profession and legal culture. I pray their PPP dwindles to sub-$1 mill and all their jackass partners head for the door.
39 - Perhaps it's different in corporate, but in litigation you can tell by somebody's deportment, willingness to work fifty straight hours on a document project, simple research assignments, and logical legal analysis to casual questions whether or not they'll be able to become good litigators. All of this can be done, tops, in the first month at the firm. If a first year working for me keeps giving the wrong answers to logical questions, keeps coming to me with questions about what exactly it is they're supposed to be looking for in the set of documents they're reviewing, and keeps giving me the wrong answers to the hypothetical research assignments I give them, I know they're not going to be able to swing it. They'll get bad reviews, and they'll get ushered out the door as soon as possible.
It doesn't have to be in the form of layoffs, of course. If you give somebody twenty hours of pointless, obviously useless work to do for, say, seven straight days, and at the end of the week them tell them it was all complete garbage and only four hours of it is going to count towards their billables -- and if you tell them every day how disappointed you are in their work and how they're not really a good fit at the firm, and cc them on the emails you send to managing partners complaining about their work product once or twice a week -- they'll get the hint soon enough that they're not welcome, and will start looking elsewhere.
I remember my OC interview with CWT NY. I figured out the guy was a douche within 10 seconds and spent the rest of the interview berating him, acting snidely, and coming just short of insulting him directly.
I got a callback to two offices the very next day.
Let's put this in perspective.
The decrease in PPP means that there's another project rightsize 2 in the offing.
CWT associates need to start making alternate plans in case of an emergency jettisoning by the firm.
Ok, now I get it 14/33/46
46 - that is sad. you are pathetic.
49 Also wishes somebody would finally overturn Brown.
14 was joking people. I mean come on, how could he/she be serious. He/she probably couldn't keep a straight face the entire time he/she was typing that post.
Does anyone have news on Cahill layoffs?
SEN has a book! Oh happy day!
http://www.amazon.com/Judge-You-When-Poor-Grammar/dp/0312533012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231773502&sr=8-1
53 - He probably liked the cut of your jib, sounds like you could have fitted right in if you'd kept that act up.
C'mon 14 - CWT is a resume stain for anyone who has worked there.
46-
your troll sir, is.... is... is... amazing.
you should quit law and market yourself to the marketing dept. of the v50s as a professional troll
So what happens to the commercial RE firms that made outsized profits from 2005-2008:
1) Fried Frank
2) Paul Hastings (d/b/a Battle Fowler)
3) Greenberg TTTraurig
Who will even believe their numbers?
40 - ABL or ATL...who cares? It shows you how much I visit this site. The message behind the post is what matters.
Just got my first batch of grades - this is the start of me pooping on GULCer's throughout my career.
GW 1L
@57 -- Hell yeah they should overturn Brown. The US Supreme Court made a mockery of justice in 1954 when they forced law abiding whites to integrate their schools. How is a little white girl supposed to learn when hulking, sweaty Tyrone is sitting next to her, staring down her bosom, licking his over-sized, chicken grease-smeared lips?
65, what about CWT's dissolution? any news? how do you think this will affect cahill layoffs?
64 -- Greenberg Traurig has a lucrative bankruptcy practice and should thus be well insulated from the current market turndown.
People are cruel and appear to be pleased whenever there's bad news to report about CWT. It seems logical that CWT would need to keep partners content with a nice profit margin in order to keep them from looking for greener pastures. I'm only a lowly secretary, and I can understand that. So the better the profits per partner, the better our chances for staying alive and keeping that many more people from unemployment in this awful economy where other jobs will be very hard to come by.
@70 -- if you really are a secretary, answer these 2 questions please: 1 Are you a broad? 2 If you are a broad, do you have a phat booty. I want to smell the juicy insides. So open up them cheeks.
70 I would be pleased if you fell down a flight of stairs and broke your hip.
70- this blog is for lawyers. please go back to surfing the entertainment weekly website or playing solitaire or whatever we pay your incompetent self to do.
@ 65
40 here. I CARE. YOU FAIL.
70 - No, this blog is for self important children who just think that they're lawyers.
Schlumberger and Halliburton are laying off people. Other sectors of the energy industry are next.
Texas associates are going to be laid off in 2009.
29 - Nice logic, but try again. AMLaw reports PPP based on annual net income divided by number of partners as of AUGUST 1, so Orrick adding 80 new partners in Q4 doesn't help much.
NAILING SHEEP to 190
76 - Do you think that means there'll be layoffs at Cahill?
Honestly, still almost at 2 Million per....things could have gone a lot worse
Hot CWT NY'05 Female associates will never be laid off .... they are too horny and too much of an asset
67 has a small white penis that doesn't please his girlfriend so he tries overcompensate with aTTTitude. Sorry loser
You all made a very, very, very ill-advised decision in going to law school. If I were you I would be very afraid.
83: Are you referring to the rumored layoffs at Cahill Gordon?
83 is just bitter because he couldn't get into law school. Have fun being a worthless piece of shit.
"When is a 30% decrease in profits per partner a good thing? When you still take home $1.88 million during the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."
This is a simplistic analysis. Maybe profits are down "only" 33% because they squeezed every drop out of their receivables before year-end... meaning they aren't heading into 2009 with a sufficient working-capital cushion. How is new revenue tracking in Q4/2008? What percentage pf PPP is actually "taken home" at CWT, instead of being shunted into deferred comp plans or mandatory capital contributions? Without these answers you cannot treat this news as evidence that the crisis isn't really that bad, which is the tone of this post.
I agree with 50 and 56 regarding 46's comment. 46 reminds me of a particular associate in my group that walked around the floor with shit on his nose treating others, especially support staff such as paralegals and legal assistants, well (no pun intended) like shit. Aside from not being able to coherently communicate, you should stop hiding behind your "brown" painted face to hide your small testicles.
I am a former CWT associate who was let go in August. I have absolutely no bad feelings towards the partners who gave me an opportunity to work there and who I still consider my mentors, and I certainly met a lot of good quality people who I still consider friends. What perturbs me the most is the content of these posts, and whether you are a law student, recruiter, a current CWT associate, a former CWT associate, an associate from another firm, or a current or former CWT partner/partner from another firm, such content confirms what I discovered in law school - that there are a lot of self-important, self-deserving and self-entitled people in the legal profession (which, in a nutshell can be captured in one word - "loser"). I am ashamed of all those who continue to hide behind the veil of anonymity and cowardly lash out at anyone or anything they can, and I am more ashamed of myself that we have something in common called the legal profession.
87, you shouldn't feel ashamed, we don't have the legal profession in common, you're unemployed.
zing
87 - right on
88 was a virgin when he graduated high school
At least I have a job.
-88
88 / 91 - You're why decent people are embarrassed to say that they're attorneys.
88 - 87 here. I must say, you are a whip. That's a real nifty response. If I could guess, I would swear you are the one with the brown painted face.
BTW, what do the references to Cadwalader Sean mean? Anybody know?
86 said:
Who's fault is it if they try to maintain 2008 PPP at the expense of working capital? If that's the case, it's the partnership's own decision. As for the amount of PPP that is actually taken home, again, who cares. If it's deferred comp, the partner is still entitled to it. Ditto the capital contribution. Unless the partnership dissolves, if/when the partner leaves, he's probably entitled to the money back.
The bottom line is that if you are normally bringing in 1.5-2.0 million per year, and your salary drops to 1-1.5 million, and you are in trouble, then you're an idiot. You are doing something very wrong. How much of a big pimpin' lifestyle are you living when you can't make it on $1M+ a year?
94 - A million dollars a year really isn't that much money, and it's very easy to run through just on basic necessities, even without getting into luxury items.
Say, for example, that you buy yourself a townhouse on the Upper East Side to live in. The monthly mortgage payments on a $10,000,000 mortgage at 6% would be about $60,000 a month, or roughly $720,000.00 a year. Then you figure that the average dinner at Per Se or Masa, with a decent but not spectacular wine selection, would run you about a grand, so you figure that's $365K a year on food.
So right there, you're up to $1.1 million a year JUST on food and shelter -- and that's after tax (although the mortgage interest would be tax deductible), without ANY other expenses factored in.
A million bucks ain't that much.
95 is right.
But, $365K on food is a low-ball estimate. I spent over $400K in 2008 easily.
Yes because law firm partners dine at per se and spend $1000 on food every day.
97 - Don't they?
97 =/= most absorbent tampon
100th
102 fucks sheep.
101 here
touche 102, touche
-101
Baaaaahhhhhh!
come here 104 I bet you are soft and purty like a woman.
60 - did SEN ever read any Elie? She could fill an entire book with one week of his posts.
CWT's 30% drop won't be too extraordinary when the rest of the revenue figures come in. I predict that many big firms will be down by about 25%. A 5% drop in revenue will look damn good in this environment.
CWT's 30% drop won't be too extraordinary when the rest of the revenue figures come in. I predict that many big firms will be down by about 25%. A 5% drop in revenue will look damn good in this environment.
LOL number 14. Yeah people are jealous all right. You name one person that left this firm that's jealous of not being here.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 87 was let go because of her inability to recognize sarcasm and satire. That and the CWT partnership is awesome people who are great to work for.
14 - I agree with you. CWT to V10!
110 - Not exactly. If you re-read my post (#87), I am actually not defending CWT. I merely stated that most of the partners I worked for and met are good mentors. I didn't make any statements about the CWT partnership. With that said, one could hypothetically state that some CWT partners are "dicks" or the "c" word, and that statement could still be true side by side with my statement. Also, 99.9% of the people I met at CWT (fellow attorneys (sans partners) and support staff) are good people. The main point I was trying to make is that, for the most part, those who post comments on ATL (a la 88) especially under the much publicized CWT headlines have no souls. We will all have to stand before our creator someday and having a job at that time won't save us.
I have told you before that the sex crazed slut attorney at CWT started in 2006 not 2005. Thank you for your attention.
Welcome to THE REAL DEAL!
[Insert cock-punch here]