First!

First to say ATL has been repeatedly scooped by xoxo recently.

I can confirm that layoffs are happening.

"The number leaving this year is consistent with prior year departures."

Sure brah.

what a load of bockius.

what a load of bockius.

Does anyone know how many Princeton and Brown Law grads were let go?

Do you know where the lay offs happened? Was it Philadelphia-heavy?

Any confirmation on the total amt laid off from Blank Rome's Philly office? I hear Duane Morris is laying people off, too---memos may come next week b/c that is when they do their compensation reviews.

Do you know where the lay offs happened? Was it Philadelphia-heavy?

Any confirmation on the total amt laid off from Blank Rome's Philly office? I hear Duane Morris is laying people off, too---memos may come next week b/c that is when they do their compensation reviews.

Layoffs at Duane Reade? Good god...

Bonus decisions have been made to some degree. Those who have received reviews have been informed of their bonus, if any.

MLB associate reviews are going on this week. Are those who are being laid off informed in their reviews? Signed, mlb non-corporate associate who received a bonus/good review yesterday but who is nonetheless scared shitless when I read stuff like this.

Incredibly tacky Morgan Lewis. Way to make it harder on your laid off associates. Seriously low class.

When attorneys are let go for performance reasons, do they usually get severance packages? If not, how do the firms declaring "no layoffs here" reconcile the severance packages with claims that the departures are not layoffs.

I have an idea. Why don't we ALL quit, then when the firms go under we can rebuild the way they should be run.

I'm talking scortched earth MF's. Mull it and get back to me.

15, i'm with you. I nominate you to chair the Proofing and Spelling Committee when our new firm opens.

13 - goes to show you can pay for school but
YOU CAN'T BUY CLASS.

Word to Big Bird.

#7 - Ask John Grisham.....

Guys from my high school used to go to Brown Law all the time, it was no big deal.

Frat Stud!

Where's Count Layoffula when you need him?

MLB associate reviews are going on this week. Are those who are being laid off informed in their reviews? Signed, mlb non-corporate associate who received a bonus/good review yesterday but who is nonetheless scared shitless when I read stuff like this.

16 - 15 here, I always add 't's' to words when I am emotional. For this I apoltogize.

Thank you for your nomination. I nominate you to chair the Bad Joke Committee. (and with that bad joke I will happily be co-chair)

First?!

"The number leaving this year is consistent with prior year departures."

In this market, that means people are leaving involuntarily, because you can be sure that Morgan Lewis associates are not finding other jobs at rates "consistent with prior year[s]".

Touche, 23. Good deductive reasoning.

Excellent point, 23.

Any thoughts on the extent to which layoffs at a firm now will correlate to offers for 2009 SAs at the end of the summer?

Obviously it bodes ill, but to what extent? Does it matter the department? What If it's in one office/region and I'm heading to another? If it's in a major office and going to a smaller one?

The firm I'm going to this summer hasn't announced any layoffs yet, but if/when they do, I'd like to have a sense of how pants-crappingly freaked out I should be? Just a little worried? Preparing my resume for the law firm of Bindle & Stick?

14, yes they do.

MLB only had to look across town at Dechert and follow Bart Winokur's playbook re stealth layoffs.

14, to clarify a little bit more, the practice at my firm (as I understand) has always been to give the associates three more months of employment from when they are told to leave. While they are still employed, there is little expectation to do work (other than some transitioning of thier old work to other associates). They keep their offices, hold themselves out as employed, and look for new jobs. There IS an expectation that they keep showing up (at least minimally). So "severence" might not actually be quite an accurate term, as that suggests a lump some payment and freedom. My understanding is that this is similar to the practice at most firms.

I also know that something more abrupt has been done when someone had to be immediately removed for serious malfeasance. I think that person still got a severence package, but those were different times.

First to say the new comments policy sucks

good point, 23.

LAYOFFS?? Don't talk about -- LAYOFFS? You kiddin' me?!?!?! LAYOFFS??

Jim Mora was a lousy coach and an even worse commenter.

26 - This summer is going to be painful. They don't want to be spending money on you, and they probably still hired too many of you even after freaking out and reducing SA positions after Lehman imploded.

Assume going in that at least 1/4 will not get offers. Don't listen to any statements from firm to the contrary.

Love you, 23!

So you are saying, to expand, that in a "normal" year, fifty or more ML attorneys would flee that hellhole for greener pastures, but this year, when everyone is just begging to keep the shitty job they have, fifty attorneys were sh*tcanned by ML and have no reasonable prospects on the street.

Slick obfuscation by ML; genius spade-calling by 23.

Am I the only one who thinks 23 is the one who posted 24, 25 and 31.

I mean wow, what great reasoning skills -- you nailed it. Partners and Firm management lie to cover their asses. What a revelation.

I award you no points sir.

Wonder how this affects Tracy Morgan and Daniel Day Lewis? (two of the founding partners in case you did not know)

Good to know that MLB is firing associates as they bring in only slightly fewer summers than in years past. Way to stay classy.

DLA still hasn't announced bonuses (or review results), and normally they do so by now. Does that mean they are doing layoffs?

THE LIST: This list does not include "redeployments," mergers, staff, or staff attorneys.
Announced | Firm | Location | Total | "Review-Based"? | Acknowledged?

1/11/2007 Kenyon & Kenyon US 16 No Yes
10/1/2007 Thacher Proffitt & Wood US 24 No Yes
10/17/2007 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 6 to 8 Yes No
1/10/2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft Charlotte 9 No Yes
1/10/2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft NYC 26 No Yes
2/14/2008 Winstead PC Dallas ~3 Yes Yes
2/29/2008 Dechert US 13 No Yes
3/20/2008 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner US 26 No Yes
4/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Jacksonville 10 No Yes
4/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Hartford 22 No Yes
4/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Austin 16 No Yes
4/25/2008 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Atlanta 8 Mix Yes
4/25/2008 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan DC <7 Mix Yes

5/12/2008 Paul Hastings US 22 Yes Yes
5/28/2008 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal US 37 No Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome Philadelphia 6 Yes Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome NYC 2 Yes Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome DC 1 Yes Yes
6/11/2008 Thacher Proffitt & Wood US 36 No Yes
6/23/2008 Powell Goldstein US <10 No Yes
7/1/2008 Patton Boggs Dallas 4 Yes Yes
7/1/2008 Patton Boggs US 5 Yes Yes
7/14/2008 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LA, SF, San Diego 15 Unk No
7/16/2008 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman East Coast <10 Unk No
7/30/2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft NYC, Charlotte, London, DC 96 No Yes
8/4/2008 DLA Piper London 1 No Yes
8/6/2008 Sullivan & Worcester Boston & NY 7 Yes No
8/12/2008 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett global 30 Yes No

8/21/2008 Morgan & Finnegan NYC ~4 No Yes
9/22/2008 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer unknown <5 No Yes
9/25/2008 Heller Ehrman US ~600? No Yes
10/2/2008 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal US 25 No Yes
10/14/2008 Clifford Chance NYC & DC 20 No Yes
10/20/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Charlotte 8 No Yes
10/20/2008 Katten Muchin Rosenman US 21 No Yes
10/21/2008 Jenner & Block US 10 No Yes
10/22/2008 Dechert US 10 to 30 Yes No
10/23/2008 O'Melveny & Myers LA 5 Yes Yes
10/27/2008 White & Case Milan 14 No Yes
10/28/2008 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner US ~500? No Yes
10/30/2008 Bell Boyd & Lloyd Chicago 10 No Yes
11/3/2008 McKee Nelson NYC 13 No Yes
11/3/2008 McKee Nelson DC 4 No Yes

11/11/2008 Loeb & Loeb US 8 Yes Yes
11/11/2008 White & Case US, London 70 No Yes
11/12/2008 Moore Van Allen Charlotte 20 No Yes
11/13/2008 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe US 40 No Yes
11/14/2008 Greenberg Traurig NYC unk No No
11/19/2008 Brown Rudnick US 20 No Yes
11/20/2008 Mayer Brown US 33 No Yes
11/20/2008 Squire Sanders US <30 Yes Yes
11/21/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf NYC 5 to 11 Unk No
11/21/2008 Fried Frank US 15 Yes No
12/1/2008 Fried Frank US 15 Yes No
12/3/2008 Reed Smith UK 11 No Yes
12/4/2008 Proskauer Rose US 35 No Yes
12/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf NY 11 No Yes
12/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf LA 1 No Yes

12/5/2008 Seyfarth Shaw US 30 No Yes
12/10/2008 Pircher Nichols & Meeks LA, Chicago 8 No Yes
12/10/2008 Howrey Unk ~10 Yes Yes
12/15/2008 Wolf Block US 15 No Yes
12/15/2008 Drinker Biddle US 20 No No
12/17/2008 Gunderson Dettmer US Unk Yes No
1/7/2009 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 15-25 Yes No
1/7/2009 Dickstein Shapiro NYC & DC 10 No Yes
1/8/2009 Parker Poe NC/SC 13 No Yes
1/8/2009 Baker & McKenzie NYC 6 No Yes
1/8/2009 Clifford Chance London ~80 No Yes
1/8/2009 Cahill Gordon Unk Unk Unk No
1/9/2009 Wildman Harrold Chicago 10 Yes Yes
1/9/2009 Loeb & Loeb US 4 Unk No
1/13/2009 Dewey & LeBoeuf LA 8 Unk Yes

1/14/2009 Foley & Hoag Boston 17 No Yes
1/16/2009 Blank Rome NYC & Philly >/=12 No Yes
1/21/2009 Cooley Godward US 52 No Yes
1/22/2009 Cadwalader NYC 3 Unk Yes
1/22/2009 Cadwalader Charlotte 6 Unk Yes
1/22/2009 Allen & Overy NYC 3 Yes Unk
1/23/2009 Choate Boston 15 No Yes
1/26/2009 Wilson Sonsini US 45 No Yes
1/28/2009 Morgan Lewis US ~50 Unk No

28 -

Let's give credit where credit is due here. Paul Hastings started with the myth of "performance based layoffs" a policy that the firm began engaging in back in November of 2007 when they started randomly doing performance reviews.

When it comes to stealth layoffs Paul Hastings is the market leader:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/05/nationwide_layoff_watch_paul_h_1.php

36: I appreciated 23's comment as well. It's useful to point out succinctly the logical flaw in the particular claim ML is trying to make. Especially before the comment thread devolves too far. I'm sure 23's point (which is, of course, pretty basic), would have been lost on a good number of the commenters to the recent Latham thread.

What's your beef, anyway?

Jeez, looking at 40-45, it looks like January has been the worst month so far. Seventeen firms have already done layoffs in 2009.

better laid off than dead.

http://endofesq.com/?p=931

FIRST...

DECIMATION, DECIMATION, DECIMATION!!!!

Can anyone confirm which offices were hit the worst?
Which department(s)?

"It looks like Morgan Lewis did a lot to avoid firing anybody. "

I would hardly call a 4 week salary freeze doing "a lot"

Which offices are impacted?

Is this from the DC office?

Do these numbers include the people who were laid off in December?

14 and 29, the practice at my firm also has been to give those who are told to leave for performance reasons (in good times) 3 months' severance, and continuing access to email and phone number, to give the appearance of being employed so that it is easier for them to find another job, without expectation of any work being performed during that time. However, they do have to sign a waiver (won't sue for termination) to get the 3 months. I agree with 29 in that I think that's fairly typical.

(1) "Attorneys depart law firms for any number of reasons. The number leaving this year is consistent with prior year departures." Morgan Lewis has used this same tired quote for at least the past 5 years. What lawyer is going to VOLUNTARILY leave her job during the worst economic/employment implosion in the past 20+ yrs. (2) The lay-offs were in corporate and litigation. (3) Many were NOT offered a 3-month severance; some were offered far less. (4) "It looks like Morgan Lewis did a lot to avoid firing anybody." What MLB did was make sure that none of the equity partners took a hit. If you consider that MLB partners had an exceptionally profitable year, it seems they could have done a little more.

47, its 36, no beef. I'm a verbal vegetarian. I think 15 had it spot on (aside from the misspelling).

Something has to change with law firm management. I mean once this recession is over and they start hiring again we simply cannot go back to the same old.

Fool me once shame on you.(2000-2001) Fool me twice shame on me.(2008-2009) Fool me three times and I probably am brain dead from standing in front of the microwave to heat up my cup of noodles at AM whilst pulling an all-nighter of doc review for the 3rd straight month.(????-????)

47, its 36, no beef. I'm a verbal vegetarian. I think 15 had it spot on (aside from the misspelling).

Something has to change with law firm management. I mean once this recession is over and they start hiring again we simply cannot go back to the same old.

Fool me once shame on you.(2000-2001) Fool me twice shame on me.(2008-2009) Fool me three times and I probably am brain dead from standing in front of the microwave to heat up my cup of noodles at AM whilst pulling an all-nighter of doc review for the 3rd straight month.(????-????)

The gold rush is over. Now we need to work for our 160K+. Sucks.

Who are you kidding. It was good for a while, and we all took advantage. Now it's not so good, and some of us are taking the hits. That sucks, and I pray I'm not going to be one of them. But it will get good again, and more of us will take advantage of it.

Many people would kill for an all-nighter mindless doc review. Go do some real work.

Can someone out there provide real information, such as which offices and which practice groups were hit?

There needs to be a full explanation of the legal climate right now, and I don't know any reason why ATL isn't working to get some expert on the legal community and its finances to come in and do interviews or write stories (they certainly seem not to mind interviewing people about reality TV).

In past years, during the boom time, attrition rates were fairly high for V50 firms. Many of them had no problem with the "up or out" system for senior associates. If you were senior, and you didn't make partner (or didn't have the proper indicators that you would shortly) you left. Voluntarily.

However, going back to even before the recession began, V50 firm attrition went down. And not just a little down, but more like "unprecedented drop-off" in voluntary attrition.

The result is that many firms suddenly find themselves grossly overstaffed, particularly with less profitable but more expensive senior associates.

How bad is this? At some V20 firms a hard-line analytical review of their senior associate numbers indicates that fully 50-66% of all senior associates OUGHT to have been lost to attrition already. It will not be a surprise to hear that some firms have fired 50% or more of their senior associates in 2009.

These L&W and ML review-based layoffs are going to get extremely familiar in the coming months as increasing numbers of firms go through "forced attrition" to balance out their numbers. February and March will see hundreds of "qualified" attorneys hitting the streets.

For firms, the decision will be an easy one. It is universally preferable to give a task to a 2nd year that probably ought to be done by a 6th year and call it "training" or "aggressive exposure to quality work" than to give work to a 6th year that ought to be done by a 2nd year and explain the higher billing rate to a client.

At the same time, voluntary attrition rates will continue to be not merely low, but rather nonexistent for the foreseeable future. Combined with shrinking revenue streams (most of the increased revenues that V20 firms have seen were caused not by increased workload at the firm, but by aggressive rate increases for all attorneys, rate increases that clients are now balking at) this produces a high need for firms to "cut the fat."

Every one of us has heard some version of this from senior management in the last few months. Firms must provide greater "value" to clients in this increasingly difficult economy. "Value" means putting lower billing attorneys on more matters wherever possible. If one firm sends a junior partner to conduct a deposition, and the firm defending sends a 6th year, assuming the 6th year doesn't royally screw the pooch that's going to be considered a major "win" for the defending firm -- they gave greater "value" to their client. Clients only want to pay a real premium for attorneys that they see as being "premium" lawyers, not just part of a "premium" firm.

At the same time, "value" means having attorneys who are more intimately connected / involved with the most valuable clients. A junior associate who bills plenty of hours on 50-60 different matters during a year (and thus doesn't have any eye on the big picture with any of those clients and needs to be brought up to speed on every single matter they work on constantly) is less valuable to the firm than an associate who is deeply involved with only 3-4 clients but who has exposure to numerous matters or issues for each of those clients.

As such, both low billers (who aren't profitable) and high billers who haven't securely dug themselves into a "niche" in a firm will be vulnerable to being rendered "redundant." Aka -- laid off.

If you are low-billing, you're not profitable. If you are high-billing, but you haven't carved out a suitable "niche" then you aren't "essential." Think of it this way --- have you made yourself truly indispensable on any important matter or to any important client? Even if you're billing 2100+, if every single hour you billed could be easily picked up by some other associate (especially a newer / cheaper one) without any major hiccups, you aren't going to be especially valuable to a firm.

Those people who have celebrated that many of the top firms in the nation have not engaged in salary freezes, or have paid "market" bonuses, understand that this does not mean they will not be engaging in the exact same "forced attrition" as L&W. Skadden's revenues are going to be estimated to be in the range of down 15% for 2008. That will be average for MANY firms. In order to maintain high PPP and to present the appropriate picture of fiscal health to both partners and new associates, firms MUST reduce their overhead (which means associate salaries).

Some of this is the associates' fault. Voluntary attrition numbers are within associates' control. In years past associates would leave a firm for any number of reasons -- didn't like the hours, wanted to start a family, didn't think they were getting interesting enough work, etc. Now associates leave for only two reasons -- they received a better immediate opportunity elsewhere (rare), or "forced attrition." As long as voluntary attrition numbers remain low, forced attrition numbers will remain high. BigLaw runs on consistent turnover -- and the firms will achieve it one way or another.

For those who will complain this is all the fault of greedy-ass partners... consider for a moment the fate of firms who ignore changes to revenue and do not make drastic attempts to maintain PPP at high levels. Many partners are like associates -- they do not want to get stuck in a bad situation and will readily jump ship if a "better" opportunity comes along. If another BigLaw firm offered you similar work prospects, better job security, and more money, would ANY associate stay where they are? Of course not, and when those opportunities were available they were the driving force behind voluntary attrition.

Well, voluntary attrition amongst partners is still high. Lateral partnership movement is going to increase during the recession as big-book entities at struggling firms make jumps to more secure locations. Attracting these highly profitable partners will be the #1 priority for all large firms.

In order to do that, they are going to have to be able to woo them with excellent practice support, opportunities to cross-sell and market their particular business, and above all else -- high PPP.

Those firms who do not manage to snatch up these high-billing "premium" partners, or who do not successfully retain their own top performers, will do one of two things. They will either fold completely (we've seen this) or they will have to reevaluate their business model completely -- moving out of the top tier of lawfirms. They will have to reduce their rates, cut staff numbers, and accept doing lower quality work for lower quality clients in order to even survive. That, in turn, will mean even more of the top partners (and associates) will be lured away by "better" firms. It's a downward spiral towards dissolution or merger.

The management at all the top American firms is aware this is and will happen. They know it from experience, because it happened in the early 1990's, and it happened much more drastically even more recently in Europe. Go to London and work for a few years -- you will quickly find out that the highest quality work is competed over by only about a dozen firms. There is no one else. Entry to that exclusive club is basically cut off -- you join one of those firms, period.

Many of the managing partners in the US believe that the US market is headed for the same type of massive "class realignment" as Europe has already gone through. The separation in PPP, revenues, size, quality of work, and prestige of the top of the V20 will increase dramatically over ALL other firms. There will be a secure "1st tier" of law firms competing for the biggest clients and the best work (and paying the best salaries and charging the highest rates) and then a massive drop-off to a "2nd tier" of formerly important firms.

Every time you hear management talking about how this period is one of "opportunity" or a time for "aggressive growth" or how we need to "increase our value to clients" this is what they are talking about. Your firm wants to come out of this long recession (it's going to last YEARS people, years) and be in that 1st tier, not the 2nd. And it's going to be willing to do ANYTHING it takes to get there.

For BigLaw associates, the choices are simple. Either make yourself completely essential to the firm (be so deeply involved with something important that the lead partner doesn't believe he could live without you) or begin exploring opportunities for voluntary attrition on your own terms, instead of someone else's.

64: holy crap. how long have you been working on that?

64: An excellent summary of the situation. However, you missed that the forced attrition will extend to non-producing partners even more aggressively than non-producing associates. The junior partner ranks will be thin, indeed. And the oler partners that are just "phoning it in" because they think they are entitled to a draw just because they have been there so long will become extinct.

64: An excellent summary of the situation. However, you missed that the forced attrition will extend to non-producing partners even more aggressively than non-producing associates. The junior partner ranks will be thin, indeed. And the oler partners that are just "phoning it in" because they think they are entitled to a draw just because they have been there so long will become extinct.

66 = 64. Nobody is going to read all that crap.

Hey 49,

That's some mighty fine writing on that blog of yours.

49 = 69

MoFo is laying off 50 attorneys and 150 staff today.

GIMME GIMME GIMME

-Greedy Associate

64 = corporate attorney with too much time on their hands

Sorry to all those who were laid off. I'm a junior associate at a V10 law firm who completely gets that "it's the economy stupid."

For those looking for hours - this may be a good time to start contacting your local non-profit legal orgs for good pro bono cases. For most firms, It's worth putting in the extra effort (and actually, not that hard) to get a pro bono case approved.

Can't speak for other areas- but in LA: Public Counsel, Catholic Charities, The Alliance for Children's Rights all have really great opportunities for lower & upper level associates in immigration, guardianship, adoption, education. The cases are pretty straightforward, they train you, and you get to actually get out of your office. Good luck.

(And yes, I posted this comment already, but since it was #517 in the now-one-day-old Latham story ... i'm reposting to get the word out to more people).

68 - you don't have time to read 64? don't be surprised when you find yourself out of a job like many others because of your short attention span.

64 - thanks for the thorough post... I would love to read something like that as a main article.

Anyone have advice for 2009 SA's in general?

Were the layoffs in the DC office?

64, this is good reading. It's for information like this that I come to abovethelaw. I've been practicing for 4.5 years, and I learned 3 unique things from you post.

Do you post anywhere else (i.e., your own blog)? If so, I'd like to post that link into the comments.

75: b/c i have client-billable work to do. if you have time to read all that, you are likely to be the Count's next victim.

Has anyone heard about lay-offs at any other Philadelphia law firms?

64 - great post. Truly informative.

apparently this is a rumor and partners went around reassuring associates

David Lat: Former Federal Prosecutor and Wachtell Lipton Associate Turned Celebrity Blogger

AbovethelawTalk about a fascinating career trajectory. After graduating from Yale Law School, David Lat has moved from a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clerkship to associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (billing 2,700 hours/year) to talent agent intern at Creative Artists Agency to federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark, N.J., and (simultaneously) anonymous publisher of Underneath Their Robes - a gossipy blog exploring the personalities and quirks of well known jurists.

Which brings us to Lat's current position: editor of Above the Law, a blog that bills itself as a "behind-the-scenes look at the world of law [that] . . . provides news and gossip about the profession’s most colorful personalities and powerful institutions, as well as original commentary on breaking legal developments."

We recently wrote a post about Lat after he was profiled on Law.com (see earlier post here). Despite his busy schedule (10-12 posts/day), he was thereafter kind enough to give us an interview, which you can read below.

JD Bliss (JDB): In just a half-dozen years since you got your J.D. degree from Yale Law School, you’ve had a career arc that few people match in a lifetime: associate at a top New York law firm, assistant federal prosecutor, fledgling talent agent, and author of several highly regarded (and highly publicized) blogs about the legal profession. Let’s start at the beginning – what motivated you to attend law school?

David Lat: After I graduated from Harvard College, I really had no clear idea of what my career path should be. Law school was attractive because I enjoy intellectual challenge and I like writing and speaking – all of which seemed essential to a legal career. I greatly enjoyed my time at Yale Law School. After graduating, I spent a year clerking for Judge O'Scannlain, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I applied to clerk on the Supreme Court after my circuit court clerkship, and I interviewed for a clerkship with Justice Scalia, but I didn't get the job in the end.

JDB: After clerking you joined Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz in 2000. Wachtell is renowned for being perhaps the most successful and grueling firm in the country. What did you find satisfying and dissatisfying about your time there?

Lat: I was at Wachtell for two and a half years, learned a lot there, and made many friends that I still have today. My focus was on M&A litigation, and yes it was grueling – my second year there was my busiest, and I billed 2,700 hours. The responsibility and stress were just as challenging as the time demands. Big firm life is definitely not easy, and people who do well in that environment really have to want it. There is a serious side of me that found it worthwhile, but it wasn’t fulfilling for my creative and fun side.

JDB: Does that explain your departure to try life as a talent agent? And if so, why did you return to law by joining the U.S. Attorney’s office in Newark?

Lat: When I left Wachtell in May of 2003, I knew I wasn’t completely satisfied with my life, but was confused about what direction to take. I’ve had a long-time interest in film and television, and the industry’s glamour factor appealed to me as well, so I planned to go to the West Coast and pursue a career as a talent agent. Before taking such a big step, I accepted the opportunity to sample the life by doing a summer internship at the New York office of Creative Artists Agency, one of the biggest firms in the business. The experience brought home to me how hard it would be to leave the law and start all over again. As an intern, I was doing the kind of menial work that I’d be faced with for several years as a talent agent in training. Before I began the agency stint I had been interviewing with the U.S. Attorney’s office in case things didn’t work out, and they made me an offer at just the right time. So I decided to give the legal profession one more shot.

JDB: Life as a federal prosecutor had to be much different than being a Wall Street lawyer. Did you enjoy it?

Lat: I was doing criminal appellate work that as a lawyer I found fulfilling, and I was basically happy there. Yet I again felt like I was lacking a creative outlet, so after less than a year – in June of 2004 – I started blogging as a new and different way to write and express myself. I’m interested in people rather than abstract concepts, and I found the federal judges I worked with to be fascinating subjects. They also represented uncharted territory, because nobody ever really commented on their unique personalities and quirks. I called the blog “Underneath Their Robes,” and to avoid any potential problems while still being at the U.S. Attorney’s office, the blog was written in the voice of “Article III Groupie,” or A3G – Article III being the part of the Constitution devoted to the judiciary. I analyzed and speculated about federal judges, and tried to convey worthwhile information about the world of the federal bench, through the A3G persona, who had my professional background, but was portrayed along the lines of Reese Witherspoon’s character Elle Woods in Legally Blonde.

JDB: How difficult was it to manage the blog – from the standpoints of time, content, technology and the interaction with your day job?

Lat: Time wasn’t a problem because I typically work late anyway, so I did most of the blogging late at night or in the early morning hours. As for content, I basically started out writing about interesting gossip about judges that I picked up. The great thing about the blogosphere is that once you put material out there, people are going to find it and add to it, so a network of “tipsters” who enjoyed the content and added their own information grew organically along with the blog. I really thought through the technology angle because I wanted to handle the whole blog myself, so I needed software that was quick and easy to use. I settled on Typepad, and taught myself to use it. I learned that the more you do, the easier it gets.

JDB: “Underneath Their Robes” built a tremendous following in the legal profession, all while you continued working in the prosecutor’s office. How did you handle that kind of double life, and where did it lead you?

Lat: It definitely was a double life, because I remained anonymous as A3G and even bought special software to disguise my IP address when emailing. It became harder to stay under the radar as the blog grew in popularity, because it sounded enough like me that some people who knew me speculated that I was the author. It reached the point of getting several thousand visitors a day, with two big growth spurts. The first was after A3G announced a contest to identify “judicial hotties,” and Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit – who was a fan of the blog and who is a brilliant, witty and larger-than-life person – nominated himself. Then, when A3G began speculating on who would be named to the Supreme Court vacancies in the summer of 2005, it gave readership another boost. With that kind of popularity I decided that the charade had gone on long enough, and frankly I was ready for a little recognition for what I was doing. When a writer for the New Yorker who was a fan of the blog contacted A3G and wanted an interview, I decided he should meet the real A3G – me. He wrote about it in November of 2005. My supervisor at the U.S. Attorney’s office wasn’t thrilled to find that I was the person doing “Underneath Their Robes,” but he made it clear that I was welcome to stay. He also encouraged me to pursue a blogging career if it was there for me. By then I decided that it was there, and I made the decision to leave. It was on very good terms, and not because I was dissatisfied with the law.

JDB: You say that a blogging career had materialized for you. What was it, and how did you develop it?

Lat: When the New Yorker article came out I was prepared to take my blog down. It just so happened that at exactly the same time I was contacted by the well-known political blog Wonkette, through a law school classmate of mine. They offered me a job blogging at Wonkette, and I accepted. I didn’t leave the U.S. Attorney’s office until I had the Wonkette offer in hand. Ultimately, I consider myself to be pretty risk averse.

JDB: Did becoming a full-time blogger meet your expectations?

Lat: I was with Wonkette for about six months and I learned a lot more about blogging there. But ultimately it wasn’t a good fit. The blog already had a voice and identity, and it was focused on politics rather than legal affairs. I wanted to pursue something new and different that focused on the law. What I had in mind was a blog that would be a legal tabloid – something with the tone and credibility of The American Lawyer, but more free-form and with more gossip. In mid-2005, I pitched my idea to Dead Horse Media, which also owns the Wall Street online tabloid DealBreaker. My blog idea became “Above the Law” (www.abovethelaw.com), which is a legal tabloid much like I envisioned. We have hard news, opinion and gossip about the profession. I write it in a voice much like A3G, but this time it’s really me. It’s a place where lawyers can bring their gripes and frustrations, and others in the profession can relate to them. For example, we’ve been running an interview horror stories series where people relate the worst things that were ever done to them, or that they did. I do 10 to 12 postings a day and we’ve already had great readership, with about 15,000 page views on a typical weekday.

JDB: In one sense you’ve come a long way from being a practicing lawyer, yet in another you’re still active in the profession. Are you pleased with how things have worked out?

Lat: I’m very comfortable with where I am now and I’m having a great time. I don’t have any plans to change what I’m doing in the foreseeable future, although I’m supplementing it by doing some freelance writing for publications like the New York Observer and Washingtonian magazine. I don’t have any regrets about leaving active practice, but I still maintain my bar dues and keep up with my Continuing Legal Education requirements. It lends credibility to what I do, and keeps me a participant rather than just an observer in the profession.

JDB: Given your success at career transitions, what advice would you give other attorneys who may not be satisfied with legal practice but are uncertain about what direction to take?

Lat: Lawyers and nonlawyers have very different reactions to my career change. Nonlawyers ask how I could have left such a prestigious and lucrative profession. Lawyers say something like “congrats, good for you, I’m jealous.” I feel fortunate that what I started as a hobby has turned out to be something I do for a living, and to me that shows the importance of exploring all your different options to the extent that you can. Keep on going until you find something that fits. Practicing lawyers have the skills to be a small business owner or a freelance writer, or any other option that appeals to them. It takes time and flexibility, but if one alternative doesn’t have the appeal you thought it would, try another that’s just as feasible. The perfect gig doesn’t happen all at once – make adjustments as you go along, and learn more about what you really want to do.

71: Mofo laying off 50attorneys + 150 staff today? Any more details?
Good grief. And the mighty shall fall.

concerned about a friend -- does anyone know which offices affected?

64= Excellent, thanks.

"apparently this is a rumor and partners went around reassuring associates"

This is not a rumor. I know 2 non-corporate associates in NYC MLB office who were told yesterday during their reviews.

64: Great post. Ellie, make 64's post an independent article. It is a thoughful read, much like the adamsmithesq blog.

87 -- Which departments?

MLB doesn't even have a department called "corporate." But, there are several departments that each handle various corporate-related matters. For those that believe the report, what specific departments were affected?

MLB fired a number of M&A associates in their NY office. Stupidly, they fired one who made hours and is probably one of the smartest people at the firm.

63's post is very insightful. That said, I find the partner's arguments to be inconsistent. The vast majority of biglaw partners are liberal Democrats who rail against "executive greed" and "trickle down economics" but their argument seems to boil down to: We need high profits per partner in order to keep and attract new partners. We are willing to take advantage of the bad economy to do so. Even though we make over a $1million dollars a year, we need the money more than first and second year associates with six figure debts.

In essence, it is a race to the bottom in which law firms are going to cut the number of associates to the point in which profits per partner are highest without regard to loyalty or perhaps even skill level. This seems more similar to the GE "cut the bottom 10%" approach than the epitome of a noble profession.

I would have no problem if most law partners were libertarian conservatives who were advancing the philosophy. I do have a problem that is being advanced by people who believe in a redistributive economic system, just not when it applies to them.

91, was that "smartest person" you?

91, here. No, I don't work there. He is incredibly brilliant. Unlike you I went to a top law school and he was clearly one of the smartest people in the class.

Ha ha. Sure, sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Have fun in the unemployment line, sucker.

I can confirm that MLB is nixing bonuses for laid off associates, no matter how many hours they billed last year.

Partners in the Houston office denied that layoffs occured. Here is the email:

All,

Some of you have approached me about this afternoon's posting in Above The Law stating that MLB is laying off 50 associates. By now I am sure everyone has read it, or at least heard about it. The posting is not accurate. As Fran Milone stated to the Associates a few weeks ago, MLB is not planning any layoffs at this time. I reiterated that point in my meeting with the Litigation Associates last week. Tomorrow, Fran will host a videoconference with the non-legal staff where he will repeat this message.

If any of you would like to discuss this issue with me, I would be happy to do so.

The partners at MLB are liars. About two weeks before the salary freeze the head of our section told us that the firm was not going to freeze salaries. Now they expect us to believe that they are not laying off people. Give me a break. Since evaluations are going on this week, it is the perfect time to do layoffs under the guise of performance issues.

CWT gave associates 6 or 7 months severance. MLB gave associates 3 and took away bonuses to those who were laid off but made minimum billables. Why is CWT the bad guys and MLB and MoFo the good guys?

97 = lying sack of shit partner who needs to get off his FAT ASS and bring in some work. I'm tired of this bullshit. Morgan Lewis is the next Titanic, an unrepairable ship taking an inevitable dive to the ocean floor. Lateral while you can, lest you be sorry.

You'll see.

From $80,000 a year to eviction: Hard times in America: Detroit woman goes to job fair; stunned by the hundreds of professionals in line. "I never imagined in a million years that I would be in such a situation" Clinical psychologist advises people not to panic, to try to remain optimistic. "Bad times pass, and it's sometimes hard to see that," Dr. Rosalind Dorlen said. www..cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/28/jobloss.hard.times/index.html

74, while pro bono is worthy in itself, not all firms give that much credit for it. My firm "requires" (i.e. strongly encourages) 40 hours pro bono but only gives billable hour credit for 50 hours. Anything over 50 is nice, but no credit.

MORGAN LEWIS SUCKS BIG-TIME!

Kill the Partners
By Tyrone Green and his Reggae Band

I was laid off from Morgan Lewis,
had to move to a shantytown.
Now we have no money
so we have to sleep on the ground.
I went to top 14 law school. And now I dig a ditch.
My wife she do laundry, life sure was a bitch.

But 'till we killed the partners.
Ooh we gonna make them hurt.
Kill the partners yeah.
But pay my severance first

We sing of fair reviews and equality.
But we really don’t care
we just want money money money.
We want to drive in a big black limousine.
Get so high off ganja we cant even see.

And then we kill the partners.
Ooh we gonna make them hurt.
Kill the partners. Yeah.
Ooh but pay my severance first.

When they come for my review.
We gonna wait outside.
We gonna hit them in the head with a bat
and make them cry.

And then we kill the partners.
Ooh we gonna make them hurt.
Kill the partners. Yeah.
Ooh but pay my severance first.

64 - very insightful, and also a little depressing. Thanks.

105, what the heck was so "insightful" about it? It's called common sense. damn law students.

-One of the laid off corporate MLB associates here.

-One of the smaller offices (i.e., not NY, Philly or DC).

-Given essentially 2 months severance.

-Made my hours

-Treated like sh*t by the management, but what else is to be expected

Best of luck to al of the other laid off MLB folks.

Morgan Lewis is pushing out hundreds of associates. 50 getting laid off is way too low - it could be 50 just in Phila. alone.

108----Wrong!

108--I call bullsh!t!