No comment. Heh, heh.

Cue all of the zit faced losers for the race to "FIRST"...dorks.

firms actually refer to the bonus as Cravath/half-skadden?

Has anyone heard anything about Cahill having layoffs?

I can't think of anything witty to say about his post. What do you think about my new pic?

This afternoon Bingham announced Cravath scale bonus + pay freeze. Too bad MysTTTal is busying wallowing in a bathtub filled with boston creme.

I've never heard of this firm either. Can we please get some posts on real firms?

elie, do you really think that cheslar even knows who you are?

Plus, I highly doubt that that first block quote was "according to the firm," considering it says "half-skadden" in it.

Ms. 6, your picture is the same.

3 - Guys at my high school used to be consumed by petty resentment all the time, it was no big deal. They grew out of it, though.

6 - How can you manage to stand up without falling over?

I would gladly work there rather than face the first-year layoffs at my firm (Baker & McKenzie). Baker announced 6 layoffs, but I can count at least 14 so far in New York--a handful of first years among them.

Bingham McCutchen has announced a 6.4 per cent hike in profit per equity partner (PEP) for the 2008 financial year.

The US firm grew PEP from $1.335m in 2007 up to $1.42m in 2008.

Global revenue at the firm saw a 3.2 per cent increase in the same period, to $767m from $743.5m last year.

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=136419&d=415&h=417&f=416

Anybody remember when people thought that Cravath would have its reputation ruined forever for cutting bonuses a couple months ago? No? Let me remind you:

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/11/associate_bonus_watch_cravath_1.php#comment-838496

Wow, how's that looking now?

side note: Baker & McKenzie, San Diego, is the biggest group of dbags this side of the mississippi. If any of you are reading this and are wondering if this includes you, it does. I did not accept my Baker offer because of this, thank goodness. I don't know anyone in the NY office, but it's a shame that first years are getting cut.

15 - I'm sure it's just that they're bothered by the total lack of ASS LOBSTERS on the West Coast. They're too bumbed to be happy.

15 - I have a very important message for you. YOU ARE AN EPIC DOUCHE.

17 knows he's included in the group of dbags.

6 - zomg, are you even chestier? nice cravath, madam.

16 - your meme called. it says "YOU ARE AN EPIC DOUCHE."

17 - true.

Elie, Evan here. I just got back from drinks with various partners who aren't hiring any associates in Tokyo, so I'm typing fast. I have no idea who you are, but I'd be happy to send you to Dubai.

more firms to follow, including those who seemingly have not frozen

the firms now see that associate pay reductions (not freezes, but reductions) are an EASY and PAINLESS way to increased PPP

look for reductions first week of February

take the smart way out guys - cut the pay for the associates and jack that PPP PAINLESSLY - the hired help have NOWHERE else to go....

17: Baker spokesperson.

19 - 0 for 4 on jokes in one post.... A new record!

I don't understand all the lobster comments. Someone please explain...

6 - i wouldn't mind parking my chadbourne between those things.

Lobsters live in the ocean. Kash's ass is in the middle of her body, her ass is on the back of her body.

Kash has a lobster up her ass. Got it now?

huh?????????????

it's Kash's lobster.

Please shut the fuck up about Cahill.

Yes, quite a busy news day at Bingham: announce rise in revenue and PPP for 2008, announce closing of the Walnut Creek office, announce salary freeze for associates.

The only way to top that off would be with some stealth associate layoffs during annual reviews next week....

Where da party at yo

6 -- awesome pic, but I liked your previous one better.

Elie Mystal looks like Tay Zonday. Discuss.

32 = fail.

Chocolate Rain! Chadbourne cut their salaries today,
Chocolate Rain! For second years: No increase in their pay!

29- Don't forget that Bingham also announced proudly (thanks Jay-z you douchebag) the Forbes best places to work list AND that they're funding some pro-bono fellows AND in conjunction with Walnut Creek closing, there are staff layoffs.

We're great! We suck! We're great! We suck! Consistency in message was not there today, if ever.

Boo hoo! Stop all the crying and whining. At least you didn't get FUBARed by Thacher Loss, I mean Thacher Profitt.

CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA CHANGE IS COMING TO AMERICA

YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CAN

35 - in more important news, the AVST system is now up in the Portland office.

WE ARE GOING TO TAX THE CRAP OUT OF THOSE SCUM PARTNERS WHO LOVE MONEY JUST A LITTLE TOO MUCH. THAT IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT. WE WILL DEFEAT THE PARTNERS ONCE AND FOR ALL. YES WE CAN! YES WE WILL! CHANGE IS IN THE AIR. WE WILL PREVAIL, WE WILL WIN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

President-Elect Obama is going to change our working conditions. No more 70-80 hour weeks! No more being constantly tethered to our BlackBerries! Mr. Obama, I am ready for change to happen tonight.

Cahill laying off midlevels tomorrow. Heard it here first bitches.

37 = racist communist

29-Stealth layoffs are not done during reviews. Not even at Bingham.

How does this impact the Mexican party related to a certain law school?

Dear Bingham Associates:

Yes, layoffs are coming. And we're tracking your IP address, too.

JSZ

24 staff layoffs at A&B today. Sad, Sad

c&p to 190 in 2010

New York
Looking in the mirror
Seeing Detroit
Vision ever clearer

New York
Looking in the mirror
Seeing Detroit
Vision ever clearer

i thought the whole Kasshlobster thing started with Marin's post telling some guy he should consider getting crabs so some girl would leave him alone. then someone made a lame joke about getting lobsters instead of crabs and that was the beginning of the asslobster. Someone said Kash has one b/c half the guys here are obsessed with Kash and the joke has consumed ATL.

that's my understanding anyway

Who cares about Chadbourne? The real story is Sullivan & Cromwell fucking over its associates and screwing them out of bonuses. Partners at S&C had a great year and the associates were really busy until late November. Sullivan & Cromwell leads the pack when it comes to being a greedy sweatshop.

At least the "experience" is worth it! HAHAHAHA, what a miserable place to work.

"Please shut the fuck up about Cahill."

Wait...what's going on at Cahill? Are there layoffs?

Do you guys understand that THE idea of 2009 is associate pay reductions? Painless way to increase PPP, and long over due. On an inflation adjusted calculation (according to my data), a first year should be making just a bit over 95K, and an 8th year something less than 140K (NY rates). Pay reductions are absolutely called for given the over supply of associates, their lack of loyalty to firms, and their inability to move elsewhere for say FOREVER given the Great Depression we are in.

My calculations show a moderately levered firm could increase PPP 40% without a single new client and without a single rate increase by simply reducing salaries.

Will my words of wisdom be heeded? Only time will tell.

54 sounds like my husband (dbag partner at biglaw), but I'm pretty sure my husband still remembers who generates the PPP.

Here is the important question for 2009. I have 4 pics I can use as my avatar.
--One with an incredible cleavage shot.
--One where I'm in a blue tank top.
--One full body shot where my chest is bigger than my head.
--One from the front, where I look innocent enough, but you know I'm a tiger waiting to pounce.

Which one? And ugly biglaw chicks, you don't get a vote.

54, that is the most ridiculous post I have seen in a while. Yea, an 8th year will tolerate working his/her ass off for 60+ hours/week to make $140K, so that partners can take home $2 million. Meanwhile, his/her friend will be working 9-5 (with no work on weekends, 4 weeks vacation, and 10 holidays) in a cushy government job making the exact same amount, but with complete job security and a pension.

Sure, that sounds like a very accurate prediction.

56 sounds like a dumbass. The biglaw associate does not have the option of going inhouse or to another firm as no one is hiring now or in the near term (3-5 years).

The firms will catch on to this very soon, and reduce salaries from their bloated levels to something more reasonable, and pass along a good portion of those savings to clients no doubt.

Question for any CA labor law types:

Can a CA firm that in 2008 announced a very specific bonus program, with clearly defined performance and hours targets tied to particular bonus amounts, retroactively change that program to reduce bonuses?

Keep in mind, I am not talking about changes going forward -- I know they can reduce salaries, reduce or eliminate bonuses for 2009, etc. I'm talking about a retroactive change in bonuses that have already, in some sense, been earned for 2008.

Keep in mind also that I am not talking about a NY-style bonus program where the firm announces bonuses in its discretion at the end of the year. At my firm, the bonus program, with performance and hour targets, was clearly stated in April 08.

Associates were, presumably, incentivized by and worked towards those targets for the entire year (at least I was and did). Now the firm is talking about changing the program.

Can they really do that?

hey everyone! i'm back!

i guess i won't have to beg elie for a job at atl anymore...

i received three offers for a 1l sa position and i'll be at a firm paying market in an undisclosed city. i would like to thank everyone for their kind (and not-so-kind) words.

i saw that i finished 4th for the atl lawyer of the year and 3rd for commenter of the year...thanks for your votes.

*gives a sincere hug, and i didn't even slide a resume in your back pocket!*

-nervous T-10 1L
4 interviews
3 offers
1 sa job!

*starts getting a little nervous for my job in may...anyone know how to be a good sa?!?*

With all the awful shtick going on here at ATL, let me say, welcome back nervous T10 1L. You are actually funny.

Posters talking about ass lobsters, spreading butt cheecks, cahill layoffs, and countless other boring, unoriginal, and stupid topics can all go to hell. You've been ruining this blog and I hate you for that. I hate you so very much.

Good for you, Nervous. You're an inspiration to us all. And considering the quality and tone of the overwhelming majority of comments on ATL, I think most of the grown ups here would like to go back to a time when you were the most irriating thing we had to deal with.

Cravath and Sullivan are both TTT sweatshops. You don't recruit the top students in the country on promises of elite compensation and then pay them the same wages that cum laude University of Indiana grads get at an AMLaw 82 firm. You just don't fucking do it that way. Cravath and Sullivan have their day of reckoning coming. As soon as I am out of Sullivan, I hope it dissolves and all of the greedy slave-driver partners are scrambling to find jobs.

57 -- Apparently, you're the dumbass because you can't read. I said associates can go to the government, and you responded about how there are no opportunities inhouse or at other law firms. If you think the government is going to stop hiring, especially now that Obama is president, you are a supreme dumbass. These government jobs pay a senior associate the same $140K you think they're worth, but they offer better work, great job security, tons of time off, a 40-hour workweek, and a pension. That's why there's no way salaries will ever go down to the level you would like. Associates need to be paid a substantial premium to deal with asshole partners like you.

62 - I don't know what "elite compensation" actually means, but I worked at S&C. We were always promised top of market (ignoring Wachtell) compensation. They never said you'd get paid MORE than other firms, just that if other firms paid more, S&C would at least match. If you didn't realize that all firms pay the same, I think that's on you. You're supposed to choose S&C for the quality of the work you'll get and the exit opportunities. If all you wanted to do was make more money than everyone else in your torts class, you should have studied harder and got an offer from Wachtell.

Does anyone else hate cancer stricken women with bald heads? I mean, for the love of Christ, they could just get a wig. But if they got a wig, not everyone would know that they have cancer, and then they wouldnt get all of the sympathy. Bald headed cancer chicks are pathetic.

58, from the CA DLSE manual:

The Promise Of A Bonus Becomes A Unilateral Contract.

The California courts (Lucien v. All States Trucking, supra) have adopted the view explained by the Oregon courts in Walker v. American Optical Corporation (Or.1973) 509 P.2d 439, 441: that a
specific bonus plan normally becomes binding as a unilateral contract when the employee begins perform ance, in the sense that the plan then cannot be revoked by the employer. (See discussion of unilateral contract at Section 31.2 .10.1 of this Manual)

Any bets on which vault 10 firm will be the first to institute an associate pay cut in 2009?

Complaining Bingham Associates:

Why not be happy you have a job and work at a firm that has the foresight to save money in a DEPRESSION BY NOT GIVING YOU A RAISE

and to all of you bitching about their profit, since when is making a profit a bad thing? congratulations to them for having a well managed firm

and its my understanding that bingham is paying additional bonuses to people who bill above core hours.

- Laid off T20 associate

Pay reductions will allow firms to avoid large scale firings. Most associate committees should be actively encouraging their firms to reduce starting pay from 160 to 80/90K, depending on firm location.

Akin Gump non-NYC bonuses were out Friday and this coming Monday. Low. < 2000 hours = $0.

TrophyWife, I vote for #4. Also, why do you call your own husband a dbag?

Lat quoted in New York Times article on associate pay freezes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/jobs/25lawyers.html?ref=business

The talk of large-scale firings, the actual layoffs, and the dissolution rumors on ATL are all very odd considering that BigLaw firms in general are reporting profits for 2008 at levels that equal or exceed 2007. Even in the worst-case scenarios so far reported (Cadwalader), profits are down only 30 percent from what was admittedly a boom/bubble year, leaving each partner on average with . . . TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

How is it that businesses that are kicking off upwards (far upwards, in many cases) of one million dollars to each individual owner--in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression no less-- face such a dire need to fire their employees?

68, there is nothing wrong with making a reasonable profit, but remember that YOU were laid off to increase the firm's profits. Hope that puts things in perspective for you. Good luck finding another job.

73 - Those are 2008 numbers. In 2009, there will be massive bloodshed.

Thank you for your reply, 75.

I am still puzzled, however. You cite 2009, but we are not even through the first full month of 2009, a relatively slow month for many firms historically. Why undertake preemptive firings instead of waiting more time to see how things develop? The profit numbers for 2008, which worsened considerably in September and after, still point to a pretty good cushion for the partners. And even if 2009 is worse than 2008, doesn't two million dollars still represent a pretty far distance to fall?

Lastly, even if revenues fall significantly in 2009, I am not sure it is even in the partners' own interests to be so hasty in cutting employees, given the downsides of effect on the morale, possible ill-will, severance and overhead expenses (with no further revenue, even if diminised, from the employee), possible lawsuits, reputation, and possible future need for employees if business picks up again.

Why not ride it out some?

76 - first, good sir, January is typically one of the three busiest months of the year. Second, firms are cutting pay because they can and, Che, in a capitalist system, businesses should strive to be efficient. Third, this is now officially the Greatest Depression the world has ever seen. Even in the midst of the first Great Depression in the 1930, the work flow was not this slow - not even close.

The firms that survive this will be those that cut deep and quick, and reduce salaries to market levels as soon as possible (75,000 or so for first years sounds to me about right, but each firm will need to do what makes sense for them).

77 - Can you help with some substantiation of your claims, all of which save for the second one (I do not quibble that firms "can" cut pay; in any event though, my post was directed at layoffs) seem questionable.

(1) January is one of the three busiest months of the year when (a) it has two federal holidays, (b) many Americans are on holiday through the first week, (c) many more Europeans are on holiday, (d) many businesses are cruising/shuttering after the December frenzy, and (e) spending generally contracts?

(2) We are in the "Greatest Depression the world has ever seen"? What is the basis for this claim? I will grant that this is an historic financial crisis and it may yet be one economically but that is hardly official at this point. Unemployment is in single digits. GDP has contracted only slightly. The stock market is down, but not terribly down if one uses--appropriately-- a baseline other than the recent bubble years.

3. Market level BigLaw salaries for first years in general should be 75,000.

People at my Cahill used to asslobster all the time, it was no big deal.

77, why does 75k sound about right to you? To me, it sounds arbitrary. What is the basis for this number?

70, non-NYC Akin Gump bonuses have not been paid yet because I am a non-NYC associate who did considerably more than 2000 and I have not received my bonus. They will be out on the 30th.

80 - Not 77 here, but 75K does sound about right to me if you wanted to go "truly" market... in the sense of that's what you could pay and still expect intelligent, well-qualified, completely inexperienced attorneys to accept to bill 2000 hours a year.

Why is that so much lower than current market conditions? Because up until now, Biglaw firms had to pay enough to keep intelligent, moderately risk averse people interested in going to law school -- because otherwise, why not just go into investment banking and make millions of dollars? Since that's no longer an option for 20 year old top level college students deciding what to do with their lives, that upward force on salaries is no longer quite so damned relavent.

82 sounds like he/she wishes he/she were in biglaw.

If they hacked the starting salary to 75k at big firms, then many of the most sought after students would never even go to law school in the first place. To the extent law firms care about hiring smart people, they have to offer attractive compensation compared not only to each other, but to every other professional opportunity which might be courting smart people.

What's more, a lot more potential employers would be able to compete for talent at that price. top law students would suddenly be going into plaintiff's side practice. Government jobs would look much more appealing.

But if I can make $50k as a schoolteacher, working 9 months a year, why in the hell would I want to spend three years and $150k on a law degree and then make myself available 24/7/365 to a firm?

To the extent firms view their associates as doc review monkeys, and are willing to tolerate stupidity and lack of talent, a salary cut is appropriate. A mass firing of associates, and a heightened reliance on contract attorneys would also be appropriate.

To the extent that firms want their junior associates doing reliable research, asserting every available doc privilege, and drafting work product that is useful, they need smart associates. $75k is not going to buy that level of talent.

The $125k starting salary preceded the housing bubble and the hedge fund/PE frenzy. If salaries fall, it will likely be to that level. Another likely avenue for comp rollback could be the complete elimination of bonuses. This kind of compensation has been a source of much public anger at wall street, and when that culture faces bonus backlash, the half-skadden may start looking very generous.

84, you are misinformed. There is no option to make "50K" as a teacher unless you want to serve in one of the war zone inner city schools. Teachers in safe districts start in the 20s.

Biglaw needs to stop the madness now and get these salaries back to a point where equity partners can be paid a living wage!

I suspect many associates committees will be deluged with emails tomorrow clamoring for a pay cut in order to save the jobs for the long haul (3-4 months).

85, you have it backwards as far as teacher's salaries go. The teachers that make the most money live out in the richest, safest communities, where the homeowners pay the most in taxes and the schools are the best funded. Some of the best paying teacher positions are on Long Island, out on the fork. The only reason I know this is that I have a friend who is a teacher. She is trying to transfer out of one of those inner city school to a very safe, affluent school district at almost double the pay. The problem is that these jobs are like biglaw, they pay the best, but they are also the most competitive.

If PPP is 1 million at a given firm, then why should associate salaries be the same as at the PPP 2 million shops? Simply math dictates that the salaries should be half of the top firms, no?

The idea that freezing pay will avoid layoffs is a pure fallacy.

Layoffs will be done to associates who don't have enough work because those associates will not be profitable.

Pay freezes are done to associates who have enough work, but the partners just think that they should make more money off these associates.

Note that many firms doing pay freezes are also doing layoffs. Don't believe for a second that freezing pay will increase job security. Any partner who is honest will tell you that pay freezes will not prevent layoffs.

I second 89's thoughts.

The slow associates will be cut, and the productive ones will have more dumped on them, for less pay.

Meanwhile, the partnership will use its dim 2009 economic forecasts to justify increasing their profits at the cost of both associate jobs and the remaining associates' dignity and sanity.

Even though our salaries at Bingham are frozen, our firm is a MUCH nicer place to work than the scores of other law firms who are freezing salaries, so we still walk out on top.

AND I would much rather make slightly less than Skadden associates than have to deal with the assholes and d-bags that work there day in and day out.... Suck it you losers who have no personal lives but are making a whole...gasp...$10 k more than me!!!!!!

And no matter how much of a geek JZ is, he's reshaped Bingham and I, for one, am a big fan of his.

Stop hating on Bingham and Jay-Z.

pay freezes will reduce layoffs, but pay cuts on the order of 40% or so (something modest like that) will absolutely prevent layoffs. Associates need to DEMAND their pay be cut by at least 40% in order to save the profession!

One on which we can all agree is that this economic situtation is by far the worst the world has ever seen. The so-called great depression of the 1930s was nothing at all compared to this hardship of course. During the 1930s, I seem to recall from history class at Choad, all the top firms continued to do quite a bit of M&A , LBO and biotech work, and did not even reduce their summer programs at all.

No, 88. Associates are employees. They are paid based on what it costs to get employees of a certain type. Do richer people have to pay more for milk at the grocery store? Associate salary has nothing to do with PPP.

How bad really is this economy?

Firm revenues in general were steady or up in 2008 compared to 2007. I estimate that firms in general are expected revenues for 2009 to be between steady and down ~10%. That does not sound apocalyptic. Why aren't firm owners able to ride this out without panicking and cutting employees? This is the legal profession we are talking about.

Will large firm associates really tolerate pay cuts of up to fifty percent? My guess is yes given the dearth of lateral options, and the continued flood of new graduates on the market every year.

I don't know about 50%, 96. That's less than 100k for juniors and junior mid-levels, and i'm pretty sure you can score another six figure gig if you can get a big law job. Lateral options are always there, fed gov't, accounting firms for business associates, in house, smaller firms ... never say never, but big law pays as much as it does because it's a demanding job. 50% pay cut seems a bit steep at this point.

I think the same partner keeps posting over and over again about how associate pay will be cut by 50%. Dude, it ain't gonna happen. There are way too many non-biglaw options that will be way more appealing if anything close to a 50% paycut is instituted. Associates are not stupid enough to ensure stressful 60+ hour weeks in the absence of a big paycheck.

NY to 90 !!!

91 - Hope all that sucking up saves your job when the layoffs start! Good luck!

98, I doubt it's a partner. My guess is it's someone who can't get biglaw and who is trying to salt the earth for the rest of us.

Look, let's face it: we make a lot of money as associates, but when taken into account (1) how much money the companies we represent net annually, (2) the money the partners make, (3) the huge size of our student loans, (4) the cost of living in most large cities where the most profitable firms are located, (5) and the attrition rate at biglaw firms, (6) the fact that most of use won't be around in biglaw long enough to earn partnership bucks, and (7) the hours we work per year, it's really not that much.

94, associate salaries have EVERYTHING to do with PPP.

Gross profit = sales - expenses

Expenses include associate salaries. Therefore, if you lower associate salaries, all other things held constant, you increase gross profit, and therefore, PPP.

WTF? How can you say that associate salaries have nothing to do with a firm's profits?????

I can confirm everything 15 said about Baker & McNuggets San Diego is true - I used to work there. Biggest collection of dbags on the planet.

An ambitious law firm consultant would take this idea of modest associate pay cuts of say 33 percent to his/her clients. Painlessly jacking PPP by 30% is an idea that will sell.

1 is a no-good goldbricker.

Let me start by saying that I have been around. I was a bouncer for many years, and a biglaw associate. The last time I was at Chadbourne and Parke, someone tried to sneak up behind me and take the rear choke, and then freeze my salary. What you have to do in that situation is first remember its a street fight. Keep your chin down to protect your neck, step to the side and grab and hoist him by his knees, and then drop your weight to the side with him underneath you. The last time I performed this escape in a down market, I broke somebody's ribs, and ended up with an above-market bonus.

FYI, Fish & Richardson has been quietly laying off associates at several offices AND annoucned an associate pay freeze on Friday. F&R associates are getting the best of both worlds.