V10 layoffs are imminent. Simpson will go first.

It has reached the point where you cannot take what your firm says until the day has come and gone...

Why did your tipster (or you Elie) feel the need to censor the "ing" in eating?

2

Simpson announced yesterday that they were not freezing salaries. I'd put my money on Latham.

The legal industry has fallen on tough times. In such a downturn, we cannot blame the law firms for freezing salary, let's face it, everyone would prefer to make the same amount as last year as opposed to making nothing.

Many companies not in the legal industry are laying off people by the floor and those that remain probably have to take a paycut to stay. MLB is only asking its associates to forgo a pay raise. How many workers, except those assholes in big law really expect to get a big raise + big bonus in this economy?

TIER 1 (firms that are Wachtell)
Wachtell

TIER 2 (firms paying double market bonuses and not freezing)
Skadden

TIER 3 (firms not freezing)
Cravath, etc.

TIER 4 (firms freezing)
Latham, etc.

TIER 5 (firms lying about not freezing and then freezing later)
Morgan Lewis

SURVEY

Lat, Elie and Kash are bent over in front of you, butt cheeks spread, waiting for you to smell the juicy insides (Kash has a lobster poking out of her butt.) What do you do? What - do - you - do?

hey mysTTTal, i didn't see a memo from Major League Baseball!!!

I can forgive a law firm for freezing salary in this economy, but not for lying about it. In the same vein, layoffs are not so bad as long as it is done openly. Nobody likes layoffs, but sometimes it must be done.

6, I'm pretty sure any worker who has been told they will receive a raise really expect to receive it, even IN THIS ECONOMY.

Why isnt ATL covering Wilkie's Layoffs? Always a step behind... uggh

@8 -- I gets the dippin butter and a spork!

How many of the firms that are freezing salaries are also freezing rates?
-Tom Foolery

I don't see how the firm "lied" to anyone. They stated: "As in past years, base compensation adjustments will continue to be effective as of January 1 and will be reflected in your January paycheck."

And, after evaluating their situation, they decided the base compensation adjustment would be ZERO for 2009. They never stated that the base compensation adjustment would be any particular amount or follow any particular scale, just that it would take effect in January.

MLB didn't "lie" at all. They just made a decision as to the base compensation adjustment, which I'm sure the associates are seeing in their January paychecks. Seriously, for a legal crowd, the reading comprehension around here really sucks.

15 = morgan lewis managing partner

11: then that worker must be really dumb. They were promised a raise when times were good. Now times are bad, that promise is probably no longer good. Lawyers for all their education have so little common sense, it is amazing.

4 - People are losing the ability to censor intelligently. I recently saw a movie on TV where they bleeped out the "bitch" in "son of a bitch" and the "god" in "goddamn" but left "ass" and "horseshit" completely uncensored.

I think the solution is to eliminate all censorship in its entirety, but Lord forbid our poor doe-eyed innocent children who frolic and play in the meadows would find out where babies come from or what all those words they hear from their parents' bedroom at night mean.

15 gives all other lawyers a bad name.

17 - yeah, cause times were fucking great in October.

12 - because Willkie's layoffs have been stealth

I don't think it's such a big deal they lied, but that they just did it. The bottom line is the bottom line.

Cravath doesn't seem so bad anymore. Latham seems worse. But Skadden still rulez.

Where are the clueless idiots who once said that the firms paying half the 2007 bonuses, like Davis Polk, were dramatically hurting their recruiting for years and years to come?

notice whose base compensation is not staying the same... the partners. Life is good with the brass ring.

I agree with 7 and 15. Regarding 7, there may need to be additonal tiers for firms that freeze and give no bonuses and firms that freeze and give market or higher bonuses to associates making hours requirements.

5 Simpson might not have frozen salaries but everyone at the firm knows that layoffs have been going on throughout 2008....they started summer 2008 and have been laying people off since....from what i know there was a lay off wave in summer...then another one around september/october....the last wave of layoffs (with the most victims) was in early December....

simpson also sent out a memo extending the hours for a car home to 9pm for in manhattan (8pm before) and 10pm for outside (9:30pm before).......

lastly, the receptionist that are only there to take attendance...their hours have also been cut by 3 or 4 hours......now they are only there from 9 to 6......they used to be there from 8 to 7pm or 8pm.....

Willkie layoffs? Quinn Emmanuel layoffs? We need updates!

To the Morgan Lewis managing partner at comment 15,

You're a s*** eat*** f***. No one wants to work for people like you. F*** you and your firm.

- All of us who can't read good.

So which firm is going to actually DECREASING base salaries back down to 2005-2006 levels? It's happened before and it's only a matter of time when freezing a salary becomes the new raise!

16-wrong. I'm just someone who knows the difference between "lying" and "doing something that you don't want to see happen."

19-I apologize if my basic reading comprehension and reasoning skills offend you. Maybe you should brush up on these. It might help to make you a better lawyer (once you graduate, that is), and help redeem the reputations of lawyers everywhere.

Thank God I took that position at Paul Hastings over Morgan Lewis.

I am super confident that PH will raise as the promised to do in 2009. They are the most honest forthright law firm in these United States.

They would never engage in any underhanded practices like stealth layoffs, misleading bonus schemes or reckless hiring.

They pioneered the Kirkland unlimited vacation concept and to make sure that they pay market wait until March to pay my bonus!

I am so lucky to work at a place were Partners take personal responsibility and attrition is so low.

CHUBBY WOMEN SPREADING THEIR BUTTCHEEKS SO I CAN SMELLS THE JUICY INSIDES!

28, you must be a blast at parties.

The two MLB memos are in no way contradictory of each other, unless you read something implicit in the first memo that wasn't actually there, and that is your own fault.

-not 15, not a partner

5 Simpson might not have frozen salaries but everyone at the firm knows that layoffs have been going on throughout 2008....they started summer 2008 and have been laying people off since....from what i know there was a lay off wave in summer...then another one around september/october....the last wave of layoffs (with the most victims) was in early December....

simpson also sent out a memo extending the hours for a car home to 9pm for in manhattan (8pm before) and 10pm for outside (9:30pm before).......

lastly, the receptionist that are only there to take attendance...their hours have also been cut by 3 or 4 hours......now they are only there from 9 to 6......they used to be there from 8 to 7pm or 8pm.....

31 - your firm is a 2nd rate shop so STFU

21 - you mean sTTTealTTTh

Was 31 written by a by a PH lateral from Dubai and translated into English?

23, in the absence of further salary undercutting by shittier firms I think that the allure of working at a sweatshop v10 firm would have been diminished if you couldn't even count on them matching the highest peer firm's bonus.

However, now the shittiest firms are cutting comp by even more so the top NYC firms look good in comparison.

CHUBBY WOMEN SPREADING THEIR BUTTCHEEKS SO I CAN SMELLS THE JUICY INSIDES!

38, but if you work at a V10 firm you still get paid in prestige points, and you can brag that you went to a top 10 firm as determined in a poll of mostly other junior associates!

29: As a class of 2005 associate, I would be happy to go back to the 145k scale. I would make more money then (185k) than I do under this stupid freeze (180k).

5 Simpson might not have frozen salaries but everyone at the firm knows that layoffs have been going on throughout 2008....they started summer 2008 and have been laying people off since....from what i know there was a lay off wave in summer...then another one around september/october....the last wave of layoffs (with the most victims) was in early December....

simpson also sent out a memo extending the hours for a car home to 9pm for in manhattan (8pm before) and 10pm for outside (9:30pm before).......

lastly, the receptionist that are only there to take attendance...their hours have also been cut by 3 or 4 hours......now they are only there from 9 to 6......they used to be there from 8 to 7pm or 8pm.....

41 - class of 05 should make 185 with freeze, 210 without. why do you make 180? you must be at a 2nd tier firm that never met highest comp levels when all the good firms were raising salaries. sucka

15 nailed it.

It seems clear to me that the mention of compensation adjustments was done to clarify that no change would be made in the timing of any such adjustments, not to promise that the standard adjustments would be made. The statement was made well before any firms announced a salary freeze or promised not to freeze salaries. Regardless, I doubt anyone at MLB was surprised.

And 24, you need to wake up if you think partners across the board will make more in 2009 than 2008.

37, I think if you just reread 31 imagining it's being said by Kenneth from 30 Rock, it makes more sense.

15, 30 - You're silly. Regardless of the literal language used, the purpose of that sentence was clearly to reassure associates that salary raises would happen "as in past years."

In fact, even if you read it hyper-literally, the statement from October is now incorrect, since not changing salaries is clearly not a compensation "adjustment" in any sense of the word "adjustment."

That said, it's understandable they're freezing salaries. It just looks bad, because they made this comment AFTER the financial meltdown was already in full swing. It just shows that now that there's been a salary freeze wave in the past few weeks, they feel safe enough to jump on the bandwagon.

44 = 15 = managing partner at Morgan Lewis

2 and 5 Simpson might not have frozen salaries but everyone at the firm knows that layoffs have been going on throughout 2008....they started summer 2008 and have been laying people off since....from what i know there was a lay off wave in summer...then another one around september/october....the last wave of layoffs (with the most victims) was in early December....

simpson also sent out a memo extending the hours for a car home to 9pm for in manhattan (8pm before) and 10pm for outside (9:30pm before).......

lastly, the receptionist that are only there to take attendance...their hours have also been cut by 3 or 4 hours......now they are only there from 9 to 6......they used to be there from 8 to 7pm or 8pm.....

45,

If you actually have time to watch crap like "30 Rock" perhaps we need to find you something else to do at our firm.

Your partner.

I'm also a class of 2005 and would have made 190k under the 145k scale, but will only make 185k if my firm freezes.

2 and 5 Simpson might not have frozen salaries but everyone at the firm knows that layoffs have been going on throughout 2008....they started summer 2008 and have been laying people off since....from what i know there was a lay off wave in summer...then another one around september/october....the last wave of layoffs (with the most victims) was in early December....

simpson also sent out a memo extending the hours for a car home to 9pm for in manhattan (8pm before) and 10pm for outside (9:30pm before).......

lastly, the receptionist that are only there to take attendance...their hours have also been cut by 3 or 4 hours......now they are only there from 9 to 6......they used to be there from 8 to 7pm or 8pm.....

15 and 44 - So if I tell you I am going to give you a raise, then when the time comes for a raise I give you a raise of ZERO, I didn't lie?

thanks for giving lawyers a bad name.

There will be adjustments as is years past. But unlike past years, this year's adjustment is zero? How can you say that with a straight face?

Has anybody heard anything about possible layoffs at Cahill?

52 - Be thankful the adjustment wasn't negative.

What does this post have to do with Willkie layoff rumors. I NEED some Willkie news! Anyone? Bueller?

52, good point!

Partner @49, if you would simply drum up some work, I'd be happy to help out. Not sure how much paying work you'll generate on an ATL comment thread, but you're the BSD rainmaker.

46 is correct. Reading that post was a breath of fresh air and common sense.

At this point, I feel dumb for taking over Simpson over Skadden in September. It's too bad bonus season and all the other developments didn't happen during recruiting season and it would have made my decision much easier. What a great time to be an upcoming summer associate... C'est la vie I suppose.

2 and 5 Simpson might not have frozen salaries but everyone at the firm knows that layoffs have been going on throughout 2008....they started summer 2008 and have been laying people off since....from what i know there was a lay off wave in summer...then another one around september/october....the last wave of layoffs (with the most victims) was in early December....

simpson also sent out a memo extending the hours for a car home to 9pm for in manhattan (8pm before) and 10pm for outside (9:30pm before).......

lastly, the receptionist that are only there to take attendance...their hours have also been cut by 3 or 4 hours......now they are only there from 9 to 6......they used to be there from 8 to 7pm or 8pm.....

52, where did they say they will give you a raise? Who promised there will be adjustments?
All they said was that any raise/adjustment would take effect on January 1, the same date as previous years.

Do you know how to read?

i like chubby women

Why do I get the feeling that 26, 34, 42, 48, and 51 are all the same person who recently found himself/herself with excessive free time... I cannot imagine why STB didn't want him/her at their firm any more. Didn't they read his/her law school and ungrad transcripts!

@8

Shoot the lobster.

53 - There have been widespread rumors of layoffs at Cahill, but no further details have yet become available. ATL should hopefully be posting more info shortly.

@8

Shoot the lobster.

66 - Not yet, I want to study its habits.

Kash's Ass Lobster is now being served at Masa.

They altered the deal, pray they don't alter it further.

2 and 5 Simpson might not have frozen salaries but everyone at the firm knows that layoffs have been going on throughout 2008....they started summer 2008 and have been laying people off since....from what i know there was a lay off wave in summer...then another one around september/october....the last wave of layoffs (with the most victims) was in early December....

simpson also sent out a memo extending the hours for a car home to 9pm for in manhattan (8pm before) and 10pm for outside (9:30pm before).......

lastly, the receptionist that are only there to take attendance...their hours have also been cut by 3 or 4 hours......now they are only there from 9 to 6......they used to be there from 8 to 7pm or 8pm.....

MLB's partners aren't looking for anything logical like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. They just want to watch their associates burn.

Cahill layoffs? Any word?

Interesting how high and mighty firms like MLB now make a concerted effort to shape the comments on blogs like ATL. It is painfully transparent (and pathetic).

No one with half a brain, and certainly not the type of talent that you are trying to recruit and retain, would believe that (1) the salary freeze is not a bad thing for MLB associates, or (2) MLB didn't mislead its associates about standard compensation increases.

You think you can catch Keyser Soze? You think a guy like that comes this close to getting caught, and sticks his head out? If he comes up for anything it'll be to get rid of me. After that... my guess is you'll never hear from him again.

Why is this Cahill thing funny???

73 - Are you an attorney? Because misleading people and using seemingly clear but in fact vague language that can later be used in unexpected ways is kind of attorneys' stock in trade.

72 = morgan lewis managing partner

c'mon people. willkie is the new Cahill. News please?

Willkie just disbanded their entire east coast practice!!!

75 - Do you have any details on the rumored Cahill layoffs? Can you confirm?

Andrews Kurth in Slurpee Freeze
Announced Yesterday.
Believe it.

Why is this Cahill thing funny???

To associates at firms that have frozen salaries:

Assuming there will be raises next year, any indication what your firm might do with respect to 2010 raises? Anyone think their firm might give a "catch up" raise to compesate for a lost raise in 2009, putting you "back on track" in terms of your salary scale?

- Not holding my breath

82 - What Cahill thing? Is Cahill having layoffs?

73 nailed it. Firms (or at least individual partners) are ever more cognizant of blogs like these. If they're willing to overtly mislead their own associates internally, it's only logical that they take the next step and attempt external spin jobs.

71 absolutely nailed it.

72 absolutely nailed it.

52 - Then every firm freezing salaries "lied," because they all set the payscale during the last round of raises and said that all associates' salaries would be adjusted upward each year.

And then things changed. What are you going to do about it?

61 - do you know how to read? What is an adjustment? It is, by definition, a CHANGE. There is no change to an associates compensation from 2008-2008. They will make the SAME in 2009 that they did in 2008. Hence, NO ADJUSTMENT. Thanks for playing. Try learning how to read and comprehend.

73,

Let me summarize your argument: "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot." Quite compelling.

I am a MLB associate and I don't really see the big deal. The firm's partners have taken a hit to the PPP. That hit will probably get worse because our fiscal year ends in October (so, while 2008 was good for us, everyone anticipates 2009 will be significantly rougher). They have done a good job of minimizing layoffs. They are giving bonuses. In what private business do the principals suffer alone?

I'm not a superstar at the firm by any means, but even I understand that if you bump salaries from 125 base to 160 base in a few years and then run into the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, s#it is going to happen.

Suck it up and stop reminding me that lawyers are the whiniest bitches on the planet.

71 & 73 = correct. 90 is wrong. Note: MLB PPP was UP for most recent fiscal year.

How come we have not heard about Kash's ass lobster before today?

90,

Upon reading your post, I think you should stay right where you are. Not every firm hands out free Kool-Aid to its associates. Of course, not every associate slurps it up like a lap dog...

I am an associate at MLB and can confirm that 90 must be a partner because everyone else is PISSED.

Look, I'm an MLB associate and don't mind so much that our salaries are frozen. All of the attorneys are going to take a hit this year and we won't starve regardless (making ~ 200K a year is more than fine). I'd rather not have to see my colleagues or staff lose their jobs. But, I also have the same question as an earlier commenter about whether, when things turn around, we get bumped up to where we would be, or whether we will permanently be behind other firms.

Simpson is laying off. it is common knowledge...if you have any friends working at STB just ask them.....

Simpson TTTacher

74 hit the nail on the head

What's Cahill?

89 - Read a dictionary definition of adjustment. "Change" appears nowhere in it. "The act of bringing something into conformity with external requirements" does. MLB just brought associates compensation into conformity with the market requirements -- which required a salary freeze. And nowhere did the memo say the adjustment would be the same change as in past years -- it said the timing would be the same. Which it was.

English. Learn to speak it.

98: Do you have any info on the supposed Cahill layoffs?

I heard that Wilkie layed off 40 people yesterday.

99: you're stretching a little too far. I agree that MLB was fine in what it did given the situation, but I doubt the Chairman would take your position with a straight face. The truth is, they are not bound by that previous memo. They said it would change (according to the typical raises) and now they aren't doing it. Okay, but don't pretend this has been one consistent message.

Is there any lobster left? Its almost lunch time.

can we get a simpson post?????????

99-LOL. You just looked up "adjustment" on dictionary.com and used definition #4. You absolutely ignored all the other definitions which discuss change. In order to bring something into conformity it would need to be changed, right?

Keep it up. This is funny. MLB partners use dictionary.com.

105 - 99 here. Not a MLB partner. Have nothing to do with MLB, and have never even met anybody who worked for MLB. I just think it's ridiculous that spoiled, whiny children are reading guarantees of raises into ambiguous language promising nothing. I did, however, use dictionary.com, and stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night..

And of course I used the one quote that most supported my position and ignored the others. I'm an appellate litigator -- that's what you're supposed to do. Duh.

91,

Agreed about the PPP, our fiscal year ends on October 1 though. So the last PPP numbers don't take into account the economic downturn.

And, though I'm a junior associate, even I know that the EOY PPP numbers and the draw are different things. Management told us that partner draws (and overall compensation) will be down this year. I take them at their word. It doesn't hurt that the claim makes complete sense in this economy.

I don't doubt that 94 is correct and many of my fellow associates are pissed. I think it's sort of funny because 1) they aren't going to do shit about it except whine; and 2) they'll jump into "yes sir" mode as soon as any partner gets within earshot. Much like 95% of biglaw attorneys.

I understand this Tucker Max-ish phenomenon of trying to guilt/shame/insult our firm (or other firms) into otherwise absurd economic decisions. But it would make me feel ridiculously douchey to bad mouth the firm I purport to support as soon as the veil of anonymity surrounds me. Especially when the firm, when most firms, are struggling. Kicking your teammates when they are down is such a bitch move.

The person trying to argue adjustment = no change is an idiot. Hopefully s/he is not a lawyer and if so, hopefully not a partner. Otherwise, the adjustment will be down next time, not an "adjustment" to the exact same number.

Quite frankly, the butt cheeks comments make more sense than the comments that "adjustment" can mean no change.

Elie -

How about some further digging into these firms that are freezing salaries rather than pasting the announcements. In particular, we would be interested to know if these firms are increasing billing rates to clients for these associates on the one hand while freezing salaries to the same associates. Or at least get confirmation that they are not doing something like this. If associates are taking the hit, why shouldn't partners share the pain?

Please get some transparency into this situation, which is one of the reasons why people return to ATL. Thanks.

108 - Last year on January 1, MLB associates got a pay raise. This year, they didn't. I think that qualifies as an adjustment, don't you?

109 - proof that the average attorney is an idiot when it comes to business (not that the average MBA is any better).

the firm could be raising rates on those same associates, to justify firing less of the same associates.

At first I thought 105 nailed it, but then I read 99's retort (106) and was leading in 99's direction, following the Holiday Inn Express comment. And then I read his second, snarky and arrogant paragraph. Now I'm on the fence.

I'm gonna have to ask DouchePatrole for a ruling here...

110 - An adjustment to what? The policy or their salaries? Yes, it is an adjustment to the policy that their salaries would be raised. But that's not what the memos say. They say base compensation will be adjusted. You need to read more carefully or consider your appetite for honesty and treating people fairly and with respect.

108 - I'm not an idiot, I'm a litigator. It's my whole job to get a judge to believe that tcontractual provisions don't mean what they appear to mean on their face, but rather mean what I want them to mean.

I very rarely lose.

40, you rock. LOveryL!

101, I heard that Willkie is spelled with two L's. That's bs anyways.

114: I'm sure you don't typically lose. However, if you ever come out of small claims court and start litigating with the big boys over a contract work more than $1,000, you might find it a bit more difficult. For example, most of the opposing parties are actually represented by counsel.

114 - Then you must be arguing cases with better facts. Because the "adjustment" argument is a no brainer. To argue your ridiculous point you would have to be an unethical lawyer arguing in front of an idiot factfinder.

if 114 is an appelate litigator who rarely loses, but makes such an idiotic argument it's really a sad commentary about the state of our profession--or maybe just about litigators.

what's the point of making such an argument? does it make it better if they used def. # 57 in some dictionary to screw their associates? they still tricked them. they deserve what they'll get for that. they had record PPP in 2008, but their partners would rather go back on their word (or trick their associates if that's any better) rather than each take an average of a 50K or something hit for it. i'd like to think there are some partners out there whose integrity is worth a little bit more (say in the 250K range maybe...)

As an associate, I am embarrassed by 109. Billing rates are not solely dependent upon our salaries or vice versa. Get a clue, jackass.

117 - Fail
118 - In retrospect, that was an incredibly douchy comment I made, and I deserve a Douche Patrol shout out for it.

The point is... the memo didn't promise anything. Maybe it led you to believe that it promised something, but it doesn't promise anything of the sort. If they gave everybody one penny per paycheck raises, nobody would have anything to complain about.

Be realistic, recognize that you're employees at will, and be glad you didn't get fired. Of course when they sent out the memo they anticipated giving the regular bonuses. Things change. MLB shouldn't have sent out that memo in the first place, but at the time they had no idea what the market conditions would be. They couldn't have anticipated how things would turn out at the time. You shouldn't make promises (even if they are vague, ambiguous promises) you can't keep, but you also shouldn't keep promises that will put you out of business.

The UAW has recognized this. I don't see why Biglaw associates can't.

117 - Fail
118 - In retrospect, that was an incredibly douchy comment I made, and I deserve a Douche Patrol shout out for it.

The point is... the memo didn't promise anything. Maybe it led you to believe that it promised something, but it doesn't promise anything of the sort. If they gave everybody one penny per paycheck raises, nobody would have anything to complain about.

Be realistic, recognize that you're employees at will, and be glad you didn't get fired. Of course when they sent out the memo they anticipated giving the regular bonuses. Things change. MLB shouldn't have sent out that memo in the first place, but at the time they had no idea what the market conditions would be. They couldn't have anticipated how things would turn out at the time. You shouldn't make promises (even if they are vague, ambiguous promises) you can't keep, but you also shouldn't keep promises that will put you out of business.

The UAW has recognized this. I don't see why Biglaw associates can't.

108 - so logically, it would have been OK and consistent with the memo if MLB reduced salaries for 2009 (a downwards "adjustment")? Since MLB never promised a raise in salary, why is a "change" in salary so important? Would you rather take a paycut so that the memo is accurate?

123 - why is a raise in salary so important? It's called purchasing power -- kind of tied to inflation, dufus-boy.

119 - Do you honestly think partners aren't taking economic hits? Forget the PPP numbers for a second, and focus on the draw. Every single company in the world right now is trying to improve its capital situation, because most companies run on credit, which is not getting any easier to come by.

If profits are staying constant at the moment, do you really think partners are taking the money they save by not raising salaries and pocketing it? Or do you think they're leaving it in operating accounts in anticipation of revenue drying up in the future?

Get a clue, people. Come on.

My salary wasn't frozen because I believe in Jesus.

123 - the point is that no change and adjustment are mutually exclusive concepts, not that a downward adjustment is preferable to no change. The latter point should be obvious. MLB effectively promised a raise by (a) publishing a pay scale and (b) promising a compensation adjustment consistent with past practice. Is this that difficult a concept to understand?

This would never happen at WILDMAN HARROLD!!

127 - Sue them for breach of contract. I dare you.

124 - why is a "change" in salary so important. The memo promised a "change" and not a "raise."

Pay attention and stop reading ATL while in your torts class.

- 123

I hope the last few posters arguing that this wasn't a contradictory move were schtick, because it's getting ridiculous.

Understandable move by MLB, frankly, but very poorly handled by the firm. People are forgiving, but if you tell them one thing and do another, you're going to pay for it.

NY to 145!

126,

Go back to torts at Regents U.

You won't be hired by anyone except by a Texas malpractice firm.

127 - no, they promised that the compensation adjustments would be made effective in accordance with past practices (i.e., on the January paycheck).

- 123

I'm an MLB associate and I don't think the firm was deceptive in publishing the first memo and then freezing salaries. The first memo was about the timing of any pay raise and by the time they annonced it, everyone knew that there would be a freeze yesterday. Nobody I talked to thought that there was any sort of "bait and switch" going on. I think it's interesting that that is the slant of the post.

133 -

I'm sure they could get this job:

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/lgl/993208125.html

125, 119 here. Please reread my post. I know Partners will take economic hits in 2009. Point is the MLB gang made what seemed like a promise and sold out for a small fraction of their salaries. They estimated that they could get away with it in this economy (i.e. that the damage to the rep. of their Firm and associate morale was worth incurring to take a little less of a hit). FYI, I have no association with MLB (or NBA for that matter). If my firm did something like this, though, I'd be pretty pissed. That's all. Skadden partners are taking a big hit for keeping their word. Who would have thought they would be heroes here...

117 = nailed it.
121, 122 = Johnny Cochran of the People's Court

137: You'd be pretty pissed if your firm did that? You should be kissing the ground you walk on. I specifically asked my managing partner last fall if there'd be layoffs -- everybody's billables were down because our department got no work -- and was told that they would in no event have any layoffs at least through the end of 2009. Then I got laid off. And the only job I could find involved over $100K in paycuts ($185K to $80K).

If all my firm did was not give me a raise, I'd be ecstatic.

my lit-focused firm raised salaries but froze billing rates -- so, even though i bitch about them at times like any associate, it is kind of honorable for the partners to take the hit instead of passing it down.

6 is dead on. Thank you. @11, I don't ever recall any associate being told they could expect a raise or a bonus outside of the official announcement at year end.

Now, back to solving the great-American spear-chucker problem. Damn darkies!

139: did your firm issue a firmwide letter effectively stating that there would be no layoffs for 2009? I didn't think so.

In any case, I'm very thankful for my job. If my firm never promised to raise pay and then froze it, I wouldn't be happy, but I'd understand.

We're not talking about the pay freeze here, we're talking about breaking a written promise. But if, as some have said, MLB associates never understood it to be a promise, then maybe we're taking it out of context.

That sucks, 139. I'm sure many of these whiny, greedy bitches will be singing your tune in the not-too-distant future.

6 is dead on. Thank you. @11, I don't ever recall any associate being told they could expect a raise or a bonus outside of the official announcement at year end.

Now, back to solving the great-American spear-chucker problem. Damn darkies!

My salary wasn't frozen because I believe in Jesus.

All these back and forths about how to "interpret" the memo is silly. We are not arguing a legal point in an appellate motion before a judge. The bottom line is that the MLB associates were misled, and are pissed, and the firm knows it.

90 - Are you sure MLB will pay bonuses? Or maybe according to some people's interpretation, bonus can = ZERO and still be a "bonus".

What's left now is what to do about the salary freeze. There's nothing wrong with whining, online or off. It allows people to vent off steam and provides honest feedback without fear of repurcussions. Did people/management honestly expect the MLB associates to be happy and/or not bitch?
On the flip side, the truth is that for those who are staying, they are happy to have a salary and not be laid off, or see other MLB associates and staff laid off. For the associates who really hate what MLB did, well, then there's always the option to go elsewhere.

Intelligencer is reporting that Ballard cut more staff, maybe attorneys

Any word on Cahill layoffs?

NY to Texas!

I'm a Morgan Lewis associate, and I totally was not surprised by the announcement yesterday. In fact, I can't imagine there are any reasonable MLB associates who really thought we WEREN'T going to get a salary freeze. The bigger question will be how bonuses shake out in the next few weeks. The biggest question is how many more performance firings (e.g. stealth lay-offs) are on the horizon...

114 = Douche

It's hilarious that so many readers are focused on how a firm that freezes will appear to associates and prospective associates. Times have changed. Firms are focused on trying to keep profits from slipping to a point where they will lose the people who actually bring in the work that keeps associates busy. This may be a surprise, but it is not all about you.

All these back and forths about how to "interpret" the memo is silly. We are not arguing a legal point in an appellate motion before a judge. The bottom line is that the MLB associates were misled, and are pissed, and the firm knows it.

90 - Are you sure MLB will pay bonuses? Or maybe according to some people's interpretation, bonus can = ZERO and still be a "bonus".

What's left now is what to do about the salary freeze. There's nothing wrong with whining, online or off. It allows people to vent off steam and provides honest feedback without fear of repurcussions. Did people/management honestly expect the MLB associates to be happy and/or not bitch?
On the flip side, the truth is that for those who are staying, they are happy to have a salary and not be laid off, or see other MLB associates and staff laid off. For the associates who really hate what MLB did, well, then there's always the option to go elsewhere.

All of you immature associates out there should read 152's comment 5 times and then slap yourselves back into reality.

That is all.

"On the flip side, the truth is that for those who are staying, they are happy to have a salary and not be laid off, or see other MLB associates and staff laid off."

I don't think that's true. If an associate is busting his/her ass billing a lot and probably having his/her rates go up as well, it's hard to swallow a freeze. Nice that the firm isn't firing anyone right now, but still doesn't make this sort of thing easy for the productive people.

155 - I think you have to wait to see what the bonuses will be. If a MLB associate busts his or her ass and is rewarded with a decent bonus, then the $5k raise or whatever it would have been (depending upon the associate's year -- philly compression blows) might not seem so bad.

152 nailed it. Wake up, associate peons. It's an employer's market out there. The law firm partners don't give a flying fuck what you think about bonuses, salary raises, or Xmas parties. If you don't like it, then LEAVE. There are hundreds of unemployed lawyers out there anxious to take your place. Plus even more soon to graduate from our overabundance of law schools.

And you ARE fungible--sorry to break it to you.

157 - You're wrong. There are actually "thousands" of unemployed lawyers anxious to take these childrens' places. And, let's not kid ourselves -- when it comes down to it, a first year associate out of Harvard isn't going to do a significantly better job than a first year out of Hofstra, because they're both just sentient monkeys being told what to do. The clock's ticking on all of these whiny self important babies, and I can't wait until the day they realize just how unnecessary they are.

158 -- "Mwahahahahaha!" I can picture you twirling your mustache now.

A wise decision by an excellent firm. We are in a depression and well run firms will make these tough decisions.

118 - "To argue your ridiculous point you would have to be an unethical lawyer arguing in front of an idiot factfinder."

Are there any other kinds?

145 - You're right. Your salary was frozen because your firm's trying to save some $$$.

161 - No, not really.

"A wise decision by an excellent firm. We are in a depression and well run firms will make these tough decisions."

This is wishful thinking. The firms that are freezing salaries are economically weaker than those that are not. They have either cashflow and/or debt problems that worse than there competition. This is not good. Freezing salaries may help but it may not be enough. The firms that freeze are more likely to layoff than those that dont.

152, 157, straw men both. There's no one denying that we aren't all unique snowflakes. The point is that management at Morgan Lewis continually says otherwise, trumpeting it's treatment of its associates, artificially inflating its associate life style rankings by "educating" associates and summer associates on how to rank the firm, and giving video conferences like the one yesterday about how it values us all, each and every one. I'm not surprised that they screwed associates on the same call they announced PPP was up, but I am appalled. It’s worth pointing out to Mr. Malone that his associates, at least those who actually do work at this firm and aren’t just pleased to be able to go on not billing for the rest of the year, understand the meaning of his actions, even if we aren’t surprised by them.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Morgan Lewis is the only firm to freeze with 2008 PPP up. MLB is a labor and litigation shop, and both are doing fine. Utilization is down in the single digits, but with this freeze and the lower bonuses, management shaves a third off its labor costs. No, I’m not surprised the equity partners are taking advantage of the situation, but it’d be nice if they were honest about what they were doing, or better yet, just said nothing. This memo, and the video conference that preceded it, are an insult to our intelligence. I think it’s worth pointing out that equity isn’t sacrificing anything, that we don’t really need to pull together, that we don’t need to be more efficient for the sake of the firm. Their actions tell me to work less, to hide out, and to shun responsibility. If I’m really fungible, ask one of my idle colleagues to pitch in, rather than asking me to work another late night (like this one), or another holiday weekend (like this one).

Management is greedy and has every right to be. But don’t wrap that greed in the language of common sacrifice and family. A majority of firms raised as usual—this was a choice, not a necessity, for a firm that just posted increased profits. Associates know, or should, that this has nothing to do with the health of the firm; freezing firms offered MLB an opportunity, and they took it. Associates seconding the move (if those posting such support actually are associates) are naïve to believe otherwise.

Yes, they don’t care if I leave. They couldn’t be clearer on that point; if I find I can, I will. I know I’m not a unique snowflake. I just want them to stop telling me otherwise in an attempt to squeeze more hours out of me. It’s insulting, and that’s worth saying.

And since I'm clearly not interested in doing anymore work tonight, let me point out that the October bonus-determination-delay memo is exhibit A. They claimed pushing the determination to January had nothing to do with the bad economy. But they were being disingenuous when they said the reason for the shift was because associate performance reviews are soooo important. The real reason is that even when the economy was good, they still wanted more time to race to the bottom of the comp. market. And in the first year they'd bought themselves the extra time, what did they do? Used it to freeze salaries. Those all-important performance reviews? Yes, all crammed into the final three days of the month, when partners will rush through them just to get them done before pay day.

165/166 -- amen (as i sit and work and contemplate another weekend that is already gone). very well said and what many of us mlb associates are thinking.

I agree with the recent posts. MLB flocked like sheep to the salary freeze and then announced that profits were up last year. Now the performance reviews are coming up soon. They are so important (and hence bonuses needed to be delayed) that no one I know of has heard a peep from a partner in an effort to schedule those reviews or inform associates of when the reviews will occur. Just hand me my "personalized" letter of disappointment and get on with it. Also, please follow this letter up with another discussion on how we all should work more and give up the remaining precious hours of our free time so we can further suck up to our clients and beg them to give us more work and money that we will never see a penny of. I was really inspired by that part of the videoconference. Obviously law firm partners are generally smart people, but how could they possibly think that these type of "talks" really inspire associates to work more and contribute to the firm's overall performance?

Why do we have a post on Morgan f*cking Lewis? Let's keep ATL for Big Law.

you associates are all freaking idiots. this is a terrible economy so the partners have every right to lie to you, cheat you, treat you like crap and fire you without notice. you should be grateful to have a job. you should continue to work obscene hours and bend over backwards for all clients, partners and/or more senior associates and should avoid all opportunities to slack off, even if you won't get compensated for your extra work.

when the economy improves you should not hold it agains the firms if they lied to their associates or paid below market compensation. you are a fungible cog, but you should have unquestioned loyalty to your firm and devotion to its partners.

all of you immature associates out there should read this comment 5 times and then slap yourselves back into reality.

that is all.

I work at MLB and I never read the first memo to claim there would be no salary freeze. Anyone who did is stupid.

171 = MLB managing partner

171: the memo did not claim there would be no salary freeze. The memo implied it.

The October memo is beside the point, and it's unfortunate that Elie focused so much on it. The point is that MLB had no particular need to freeze, and this, more so than for any other firm, is a naked money grab by equity partners that just saw another bumper year (and who also froze their non-equity "partners").

Associates: Unite! Ditch 'em. How do you think the large freeze firms began? A few lowly associates who preferred to make their own rules and regulations. These scams have to stop. The PPP dissolve without you, so be it. Freeze/squeeze, let 'em know just how you feel. Walk out, start your own practice with offices in NY, DC, Atl. Take along experienced staff who can assist you. Are you too dumb to take advantage? Nah, just as scared as the large firm partners who made a decision and made it work.

-an unlaid-off staff member tired of the uncertainty and games.

174 is correct. In your associate reviews next week, ask an equity partner if he made less in 08 than in 07. Associates, counsel, and non-equity partners are getting frozen or pushed out, but is there a single equity partner that is taking a pay cut because of the economy?

The performance review that needed to be pushed back a month so they could give it the proper focus? - 3 mins.

The bonuses- no longer in lock-step - so who knows how their bonus compared to any one else's.

However, I will note that MLB did announce that we are not raising billing rates this year.