MOFOS!

seems pretty clear to me: you get the class bump as a lump sum at the end of the year, but only if you make hours.

seems pretty clear to me: you get the class bump as a lump sum at the end of the year, but only if you make hours.

Working at MoFo is quite the motherf*cker. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Looks like high bonuses are given to 2100+ billers. Can someone explain the difference between standard and enhanced -- is it just some merit review or how does that work?

Also, this is a non-NY salary freeze. Are most firms doing them the same way? Maybe the NY vs. non-NY market will begin to stratify again; i.e., NYC associates will STFU.

"For associates and Of Counsel in all offices, we urge conservatism in personal budgeting . . .."

LOL...

Wow - good drafting over there at MoFo. I bet their clients never face litigation over a lack of clarity in their contracts.

BRING ELIE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck law firms in general I'm going in house. 200k and 9-5 plus holidays here I come. Later Bitches.

- MoFo 2nd year

WARNING TO NY ASSOCIATES EVERYWHERE: STAY AWAY FROM CALIFORNIA BASED FIRMS.

MOFO
LATHAM
PAUL HASTINGS

NEED I SAY MORE?

9 = Elie

11 - Add Thelen, Heller, and Pillsbury to the list

"and who are employed with the firm on the date the Contribution Bonus is paid."

YIKES! Saving money by increasing salaries after the year is up... sounds like code for "We are going to do lay offs."

"and who are employed with the firm on the date the Contribution Bonus is paid."

YIKES! Saving money by increasing salaries after the year is up... sounds like code for "We are going to do lay offs."

"When I was a kid, I used to steal the Reese's Peanut Butter cups from my younger sister's Halloween bag, eat them, place the empty wrappers back in the bag and steal away into the night"

I call flame. This has to have been written by Elie.

No soup for you!

"WARNING TO NY ASSOCIATES EVERYWHERE: STAY AWAY FROM CALIFORNIA BASED FIRMS.

MOFO
LATHAM
PAUL HASTINGS

NEED I SAY MORE?"

GDC, Quinn and Munger still seem to be doing okay.

13- don't forget Orrick...

It seems to me most of this criticism is misplaced. If you add in the previously announced hours bonus on top of the evaluation bonus, you can get to a pretty big number. However, who knows if anyone was actually awarded the highest hours plus the highest eval bonus.

no one is going to hit 1950 this coming year.

6 - Associates were ranked into three classes based on ther performance evaluations. High being top 10%, Enhanced being next 25% and Standard being the rest. If you cleared your hour requirements (1950) you would get the revised evaluation bonus. In addition, if you cleared 2100 and/or 2300 you would also get the bonuses from the original chart. So if you rated High (and don't we all want to be high) and cleared 2100, you generally did better than full Skadden. If you were rated Enhanced and cleared 2100, you generally did better than Half-Skadden. Hey, a High rated 6th year who cleared 2300 would get ($62K + $20K (for 2100) + at least $25K (for 2300) = $107K). What was Half-Skadden for a 6th year again? Oh yeah, I remember, $30K. Mofo the meritocracy? Who'd a thunk it.

GDC, Quinn, Irell, and Munger are the only CA vault firms that seem to be doing OK. Unfortunately, I turned down a few of those options for a firm in the Latham/MoFo/OMM set.

- sad 2L

15 -- and they only pay you the bonus if you're still at the firm.

So they can pretend you received a pay increase although it's to be paid as a lump sum at the end of the year, but in reality you haven't earned anything and it's a discretionary bonus 100% of which will not be paid if you are terminated in year end reviews -- days before the bonus would be payable.

This is absolutely nothing!!!! You can call a discretionary bonus a pay increase, but it isn't one. A salary increase is money you earn by working a discretionary bonus is paid at the whim of the firm at some future date. I fully expect another announcement to come toward the end of this year that due to market conditions the "pay increase" bonuses will not be paid.

Of course I also woudl expect Lat and ATL to report to the news that associates appreciate the pay freeze because it's somehow connected to avoiding layoffs.

BILLY MAYS HERE REPORTING THAT MARIN SUCKS!

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT BUT BILLY MAYS IS NOW SUPPORTIVE OF ELIE.

10 = 1L.

REPLACE MYSTAL WITH MARIN. THESE POSTS ARE EXCEPTIONAL! WITTY AND INFORMATIVE.

10- Good luck with that. Maybe you can go in-house to an even more stable environment, like a bank, television conglomerate or maybe even a hedge fund. I hear they are holding up pretty well.

Paul Hastings is offering associates CD's in lieu of a bonus that pay a 15% coupon.

The CD's are located in the Dominican should I do it?

29 - My CD is from Antigua. What gives?

I was given two round-trip tickets anywhere in the world on the private jet the firm leases for the benefit of a single partner.

I wonder how many associate jobs could have been saved there?

salary freeze at Harvard.

18:

Where's Munger's New York office, you dumbass?

Also, Munger's profits are not even in the same ballpark as Gibson or Quinn. While that might not make as much of a difference due to low leverage, it does make the firm have less of a room for error in continuing business generation.

18:

Where's Munger's New York office, you dumbass?

Also, Munger's profits are not even in the same ballpark as Gibson or Quinn. While that might not make as much of a difference due to low leverage, it does make the firm have less of a room for error in continuing business generation.

Oh quit your whining, sad 2L. Every firm is going to have to take its medicine, and the ones that take it first are going to be better off. By the end of the year everyone will probably be running around congratulating LW and OMM on their prescience. Mofo might have some management issues though . . . so sign up for Fall OCI if you're going there.

35--can you elaborate re: "might have some management issues though." Are you referring to their managerial process or the people actually in charge?

33/34: I missed the NY bit. My apologies.

MoFo?!!! Is you gettin' cheated by MoFo, or is they a MoFo?

You tryin' to make a fool a 'Sugar'?

what are "efficient legal service hours"? Does that include only billable hours, or also pro bono?

35--can you elaborate re: "might have some management issues though." Are you referring to their managerial process or the people actually in charge?

Efficient legal service hours include billable hours, pro bono, and "legal services to the firm" (in which you assist with internal legal matters that have arisen for the firm.)

Anything on Kasowitz?

This is starting to become a competition of which firm can make the biggest bush league move.

My legal services are always efficient.

will all pro bono hours continue to be counted towards efficient legal service hours?

WOW! This bonus is crap. Why tell us what we are going to get, then take away 3/4 of it. Even if they gave half of what was promised, that would have been fair, but now associates are getting 1/4 of what they thought they were getting...

would you have worked 1950 billables for an extra 6grand.... i wouldn't have.

WOW! This bonus is crap. Why tell us what we are going to get, then take away 3/4 of it. Even if they gave half of what was promised, that would have been fair, but now associates are getting 1/4 of what they thought they were getting...

would you have worked 1950 billables for an extra 6grand.... i wouldn't have.

@ 46/47 - you only worked 1950 billables? That's the MINIMUM required to remain in good standing, not some sort of spectacular performance meriting a huge bonus. FWIW, my bonus only got cut by 15 percent - next time, try billing more than the absolute minimum and getting better than a standard evaluation rating and maybe you won't get hit as much by the bad economy.

Been following this site every day.

Safe...for now...but everyone better be thinking of their plan B. I've got mine.

no, i worked more than the 1950, 2050 to be exact. However, 1950 is the min. bonus level mark, not the min. to be considered in good standing. Not all associates made their min. bonus level last year, in fact just under half made their hours. With the exception of NY, MoFo gave out bonuses to less than half of he associates.

Congrats on making your hours, I'll send the supper associate trophy inter-office mail.

wow, Mofo is in serious trouble

those mofo firms and their mofo bonuses.

This is disgusting. MoFo had long paid below-market bonuses, and they finally had put together a more fair, predictable, and competitive bonus structure for 2008. Now they will never use it and will revert to...what is this? A quarter-Skadden? I'd like to hear from MoFo associates (please identify office, as well) regarding morale over there and whether the associates will do anything... although I guess there's not much they can do, under the circumstances.

I'll tell you one thing, I'm in MoFo NY and I'd love to be getting even the reduced bonuses my non-NY colleagues are getting. Huge increase over Cravath (and a bit higher than Skadden) if you made 2100 hours (which a good number of us in NY actually were able to do last year).

This bonus schedule, while definitely shitty that it was retroactively changed, is almost the exact same as Latham's and OMM's. NY offices do the same as Cravath. Non-NY offices can do better or worse.

Too long, didn't read.

54 - for the non-NY offices, 2100 hours could you get you over or under Cravath, depending on what your evaluation bonus is. 2100 hours gets you a $10k bonus entirely apart from those on the evaluation bonus chart. There's an enforced curve (across all associates, not by class) so only 10% can receive a High Bonus and another 25% can get the Enhanced. If you're in one of those groups *and* bill over 2100 hours (and thus get the extra $10k), then you do better than Cravath, I believe. If you only have a Standard evaluation, you'll do worse than Cravath, even with the extra $10k for making 2100 hours. Under the non-NY system there are opportunities to do better than the NY office but most people (i.e., the mandated 65% of associates) won't get to those levels.

What happened to the grammar police? Or did you guys just hate MysTTTal? 'Formulas' is to plural of formula as 'antennas' is to plural of antenna. It's formulae (and antennae), despite what spellcheck tells you...

48, try to be a little less combative in your posting. The vast majority of the enhanced and high evaluation bonuses went to the more senior associates. This is because, as you know, associates aren't rated against the associates in their class but instead are rated against all of the associates in their practice group in their office. There are many junior associates who worked very and performed very well for their level but who saw their standard evaluation bonus get cut 66%. Your snide comments about working harder only serve to pour salt on your junior colleagues' wounds. That's hardly the type of leadership I want to see from my senior associate colleagues....

58, let me introduce you to this living, evolving language called "English," which is not the same thing as this dead language called "Latin":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/formula
–noun, plural -las, -lae
n. pl. for·mu·las or for·mu·lae (-lē')
For"mu*la\, n.; pl. E. Formulas, L. Formul[ae].

You, sir, are a douchebag.

THE PROBLEM ISN'T WITH REVOKED 2008 BONUSES.

THE PROBLEM IS "Assuming bonuses remain a feature of market compensation . . ." and the emphasis on personal budgeting.

Wow. This is horrible.

What's going on at Cahill?

Whatever happened to all the people who were saying that MoFo had class and was a top firm? They look pretty weak now.

Mofo to 120.

First the firings, and now this. Truly, a low class move if there ever was one.. Whatever cache Mofo had, at least at claiming to be a top SF firm, is sailing for the horizon. I remember way back when they used to position themselves as the lifestyle option in biglaw, and the power player in SF. Then they moved on to being a big shot international player in Asia. Now, they're slashing and burning, and don't hesitate for a second to admit that they'll just follow the leader in the race to the bottom. I guess they figure there's not much of a reputational hit to take in this market. There will be cartloads of middling hastings and fordham grads lining up at their door, at least for the next year or two. But good luck recruiting at HYS ever again.. Mofo's prestige just walked out the building arm-in-arm with it's bonus.

The managing partners appear to be scum of the earth. Were an associate, I'd absolutely sue over the bonuses.

65 - you're greatly exaggerating the demise vis-a-vis their true competitors. In SF, Kirkland is the only non-CA firm with any presence. SV has some carpetbaggers that get good work (DPW, Skadden, and STB corporate, Weil IP lit), but are still very much branch offices. With regard to CA firms, Latham is having problems as serious as or worse, and has been less open with associates. I've heard reliable info re: large scale stealth layoffs at OMM which have avoided being reported on this website. Orrick has the same problems. Forget about Pillsbury and the others.

I think the larger point is about CA firms in general (except perhaps for the GDC and Quinn as mentioned above) and less about MoFo in particular. These bonuses are the same as Latham's, OMM's, and Orrick's, and all have laid people off. MoFo is clearly less concerned with Cravath and DPW than they are the CA firms.

MoFo = TTT? Are they out of it as a top CA firm?

Folks should be careful about comparing what MoFo did to other CA firms. As reported on this board and confirmed by Orrick management, Orrick came through with its bonuses as promised with reductions only for those who had unsatisfactory performance reviews. Those who received poor performance reviews were never going to get a bonus under the April 2008 MoFo bonus memo anyway (i.e., the bottom 10%).

Also as reported here, OMM paid the bonuses that it promised.

MoFo reduced bonuses across the board for all associates even if you made your hours and even if you had a good review. They did it despite a written bonus policy that associates followed in expectation of receiving what was offered. This can only be a sign of financial distress. Otherwise, I'd just call it like it is: partner greed.

67 - Agree with your general point but I believe our CA bonuses are actually a *lot* lower than OMM and Orrick:

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/12/associate_bonus_watch_law_firm.php
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/what_is_going_on_with_orricks.php

Oh Porterhouse, look at the wax build up on these shoes. I want that wax stripped off there, then I want them creamed and buffed with a fine chamois, and I want them now. Chop chop.

67 - How large scale are the OMM layoffs?

Marin - Is this true?

W/ regard to MoFo/Less Bonus:

One guy at MoFo told me he chose the firm over others because it was "so chill" and because it's a "lifestyle" firm (he also told me he passed over HLS (no, not for Yale) b/c he thought the ppl. there weren't cool (awesome judgment)).

Anyways, does lifestyle now mean sending people to the unemployment rolls?

Where will law students now want to go in CA? Which firms are the most stable/prestigious?

59 - 48 here. I got an "enhanced" or "high" rating, and I'm junior (within the first three years). This is the first I've heard about the bulk of those ratings going to seniors, but I'm not always as up on office gossip as I might be. I just object to the entitled attitude of the first poster to whom I was responding, which essentially sounded like, "Why should I even bother to work 1950 hours?" I have no problem with associates being self-interested and wanting the most money possible (this is a for-profit enterprise!) but, yeah. I don't think that someone who worked fewer than 2100 hours and wasn't in the top 35-40 percent of the class really is super-entitled to sympathy (not that I'm saying that I or anyone else is, either.) This entire thing strikes me as a high-end problem. We're making good money, we survived the layoffs for now, and people who were at 2100+ hours and performed in the top-third or so of their class are being compensated at above half-Skadden (in some cases, much above half-Skadden rates.) The others are getting some additional cash - which in this age where many of my friends are worrying when their severance payments are going to run out ... again, seems like a high-end problem.

I mean, I'm more likely to feel sympathetic to our staff, who aren't getting ANY bonuses no matter how hard they worked or well they performed. If any of them are reading, this thread is surely salt in their wounds. And if the response is that we worked harder, did better in school, etc. - then surely the "work harder, perform better" logic applies to people who billed substantially more hours and/or received substantially better evaluations receiving higher bonuses.

Yeah, in a perfect world we'd all be getting the April 2008 promised bonuses - and there wouldn't have been 200+ people laid off at our firm, the Valentine's Day massacre wouldn't have happened, we wouldn't need a nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus package, homeowners wouldn't be in foreclosure at devastating rates, our auto industry wouldn't be collapsing, etc etc. All of us who are receiving bonuses are making well above $150,000; most are going to hit $200,000+ with bonuses. Seriously. High end problem.

59 - 48 here. I got an "enhanced" or "high" rating, and I'm junior (within the first three years). This is the first I've heard about the bulk of those ratings going to seniors, but I'm not always as up on office gossip as I might be. I just object to the entitled attitude of the first poster to whom I was responding, which essentially sounded like, "Why should I even bother to work 1950 hours?" I have no problem with associates being self-interested and wanting the most money possible (this is a for-profit enterprise!) but, yeah. I don't think that someone who worked fewer than 2100 hours and wasn't in the top 35-40 percent of the class really is super-entitled to sympathy (not that I'm saying that I or anyone else is, either.) This entire thing strikes me as a high-end problem. We're making good money, we survived the layoffs for now, and people who were at 2100+ hours and performed in the top-third or so of their class are being compensated at above half-Skadden (in some cases, much above half-Skadden rates.) The others are getting some additional cash - which in this age where many of my friends are worrying when their severance payments are going to run out ... again, seems like a high-end problem.

I mean, I'm more likely to feel sympathetic to our staff, who aren't getting ANY bonuses no matter how hard they worked or well they performed. If any of them are reading, this thread is surely salt in their wounds. And if the response is that we worked harder, did better in school, etc. - then surely the "work harder, perform better" logic applies to people who billed substantially more hours and/or received substantially better evaluations receiving higher bonuses.

Yeah, in a perfect world we'd all be getting the April 2008 promised bonuses - and there wouldn't have been 200+ people laid off at our firm, the Valentine's Day massacre wouldn't have happened, we wouldn't need a nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus package, homeowners wouldn't be in foreclosure at devastating rates, our auto industry wouldn't be collapsing, etc etc. All of us who are receiving bonuses are making well above $150,000; most are going to hit $200,000+ with bonuses. Seriously. High end problem.

Not quite, 67. Jones Day has almost as many lawyers in SF as K&E does (85 versus a little under 100), and Covington and Sidley each have roughly 60 (which is basically what Gibson has in SF).

Ex-MoFo associate here. The mental gymnastics that goes on at that place over how to set bonuses is truly mind-boggling, and the result every year was to lower associate morale. Translation of the 2008 bonus memo (which must have eaten up hundreds of partner hours to draft): if you kiss ass and have no life, you'll get a good bonus, otherwise expect below market. Anyone with any history at the firm and minimal common sense knew that's how it was going to play out.

Forget the bonus', how about the BS salary freeze everywhere but NY? The bulk of MoFo's revenue comes from SF and Int'l so why do NY associates get a premium -- it's certainly not b/c SF is cheaper to live. The reality is that MoFo isn't competing with the top NY firms who didn't freeze salaries for talent (i.e. if you're a top student at HYSCNYU you're not going to choose MoFo NY), so why not just freeze their salaries too rather than pretending like they're truly a competitor. The only firm able to break that stranglehold was LW and we see that didn't last . . .

74 - Evaluation bonus %s aren't by class. Those %s are across all associates. So if you're extremely junior you could be in the top 5% of your class and not get an enhanced or high bonus. A number of junior associates received above class performance reviews but only standard evaluation bonuses as a result.

How about 1st years?

75 - The non-Ca firms you mentioned are not in the top band of SF firms. Also, Gibson SF is one of the tougher offers to get, but really only does antitrust and securities lit.

PS - when did Covington get 50+ associates? did they poach all of them from Heller/Thelen?

78 - you're not seriously contending that anyone in the top 5 percent of their class received a "standard" bonus rating, are you?

- 74

Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and the rules of many states, "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to[] . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation[.]" Moreover, as lawyers, we have a duty to report it. See below.

Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

There is no reasonable way to defend this firm's actions.

Agree that Mofo doesn't compete with the top NY firms. They tried to, even moved their chairman to NY, but ultimately don't cut it as a top NY firm, and this behavior definitely won't raise their rep there. Their real problem is they used to be among the top bay area firms, if not the top. Something like the Sidley of Chicago. They definitely competed with Kirkland, Gibson, and Skadden in they bay area, in addition to the other big Cali firms - Orrick, Quinn, OMM. During the 2001-2003 tech bubble bust, they took great pride in avoing layoffs, unlike a number of other bay area firms. Apparently, mofo's m.o. has changed from then to now. Now, looks like partner greed trumps firm reputation. They may save some PPP in '09, but they've blown their position as the bay area leader. Any in-demand 1L or 2L with options in the bay area would be crazy to go there over Quinn, Orrick, or OMM, not to mention Munger or FBM. And that's going to hurt big time in 3-5 years.

73 has the right perspective. It was a shitty move. But, there are a lot of guys at Thelen, TPW, Cadwalader, Heller, and a few dozen other firms who wish they could trade places with a screwed Mofo associate. That is until the Mofo associates join their ranks which sure as shit is going to happen to make damn sure that Mofo doesn't have to pay out the contribution bonuses.

There are hundreds of firms out there. Saying Mofo isn't quite as bad as the bottom 5% or whatever is hardly a compelling argument. What's clear is that the firm is run by scumbags, worse than those at the average firm, and it's time for Mofo associates to revolt.

74 - 78 again. 5% was a bad example, although I would not be surprised if the number of first years receiving high or enhanced bonuses was less than 5% of the class. The point I was trying to make is just that the enforced curve across all classes means that being in the top 35% of your class doesn't guarantee you an enhanced or standard bonus.

Dear Mofo apologists: correct me if I'm wrong, but your firm is managed by liars--true or false?

Hey 48/73/74 - I'm not surprised someone with your attitude got rewarded with a "high" ranking at MoFo. Keep it up and you'll find yourself on the fast-track to partnership. You'll be in good company. It's people like you who make the firm such a great place to work these days - "mojo" and all that. I bet you hoard work to bill the kind of hours you do and blame your mistakes on other associates or paralegals and secretaries.

Look, no one is disputing that the layoffs of staff and associates was really sad. It was. But these were at-will employees and the firm had no obligation to keep them on. Nor is anyone taking issue with the fact that the economy is in the tank. We are all lucky to have our jobs. But despite your stellar ranking, which must of course imply exemplary legal analysis and reasoning skills and not reflect the fact that you've happened to find the key cases for a research assignment for a partner with a lot of juice, thereby becoming his or her "favorite," you've entirely failed to issue-spot this posting. The point is that MoFo promised, in writing, a certain amount of money to those who fulfilled their end of the bargain. They then, after associates performed, took the offer back. It's a basic contracts question, nothing more, nothing less. This isn't about you or any of us individually. Nor is it really about performance or billable hours, as long as you've met the minimum for either.

Hilarious. These downward revised 2008 bonuses are still leaps and bounds better than the beyond pathetic insult bonuses paid to very high billers at Wilson Sosini.

Just to clarify: It IS entirely possible that someone in the top 5% of their class would not have receive an enhanced or high evaluation. It all depends on the strength of the associates in the other classes in your office in your department relative to your class. If you have an office with a lot of really exceptional senior associates, those senior associates will likely take the lion's share of the high bonuses, etc. Also, the merit bonuses are doled out by the partners in each practice group in each office, so each office/group might have a slightly different philosophy/approach to selecting the enhanced or high bonus recipients.

Morale at MoFo in NY sucks. It's all about partner greed there now, and Wetmore is leading the pack. Too bad, used to be a great place to work.

80, what world do you live in where firms like Covington and Sidley aren't considered in the same "band" (or better) than firms like Orrick and MoFo?? Especially now. Unless your point is simply that their SF offices aren't (currently) as big -- but there was never any disagreement there. Those firms have avoided layoffs and salary freezes because they're busier than MoFo. They're also more selective in their hiring -- more Harvard, less Hastings.

In response to your PS question, Covington picked up nearly Heller's entire patent litigation group immediately prior to Heller's dissolution (some would say "causing Heller's dissolution).

93 - I don't mean to cast aspersions on those firms. They have great national reputations--indeed, probably better than the two local shops you mentioned. I think the disagreement is somewhat size, but also in impact. I still strongly believe it's better to be in an office which has its own client base, has the decision makers, and generates big headlines for the firm. But perhaps that's an issue that was more relevant in the past...

I only vaguely knew Covington even had an SF office, and looks like it was maybe 30 all largely in life science transactions before they swooped in on the dying body of Heller? I'm relatively unfamiliar with Sidley's SF office as well, but I was under the (perhaps misguided) impression that LA was the strength of their CA operation. But let's be honest, Vault rankings are somewhat useful nationally, and particularly useful in NY, but cannot be a catch-all ranking for firms in every geographical area. If Sidley or Covington SF generate their own work in the practice areas that HYS'ers are interested in, they're probably great choices. Most of the HLS'ers I know would rather tell classmates that they're working at Covington rather than Orrick. I'm just not sure that's the case. They might not get second request work, I don't know, but I haven't seen much big ticket work from either of those offices (especially now, at least for Sidley, that cap markets has died).

Sorry, 93. Last post was by 80.

#89 -- You may be missing something here. You indicate that MoFo "promised" something "in writing," and then jump to the conclusion that the firm made an enforceable contractual commitment. There may be some holes in your reasoning, though:
• Unless the individual attorneys involved insisted upon guaranteed bonuses as a condition precedent of continued employment, and the firm and the attorneys then executed written contracts in which the firm committed to such guarantees, there was and is no contractual commitment. In the absence of an executed bilateral document furnishing such a guarantee, the most that can be shown is detrimental reliance and unjust enrichment, which might support an equitable demand for compensation in quantum meruit but would not suffice to prove a firm contractual obligation.
• They are called bonuses, and not salary, because that is what they are -- discretionary extra money paid over and above fixed contractual compensation. They are subject to year-end review on the basis of the firm's revenues and costs. In a good year, they are higher than expected; and I'm sure you wouldn't accuse the firm of breach of contract for paying more than the initially expected bonus in such a year. For a year such as 2008, of course, the adjustment is in the other direction.
• MoFo, like multiple other firms, recently implemented a round of layoffs due to current and anticipated future economic challenges. In order to pay the bonuses they originally contemplated, they would have had to lay off an even larger number of associates and staff than they did. The decision to keep the bonuses low protected the jobs of at least some associates and staff who are still employed by the firm, but would otherwise be pounding the pavement looking for new employment in the worst job market anybody can remember.

#92 -- Rule 8.3 of the Model Rules applies to attorneys who lie directly to judges, opposing counsel or their own clients about material facts in litigation or major business deals, conceal or destroy evidence, bribe witnesses to lie, etc. This sort of thing does happen from time to time. (In one case I am aware of and had some peripheral involvement in, three witnesses who knew a bit too much about some questionable activities were murdered to keep them from testifying, with an attorney involved in the murky chain of circumstances that led to two of the three deaths, which were subsequently the subject of multiple criminal investigations. It may come as a surprise to you, but not everybody in the profession is entirely ethical.) The notion that this sort of disciplinary provision would apply to partners who are forced by economic hardship to trim bonuses for pampered associates receiving high base rates of compensation in corporate firms, however, is risible.

All of you strutting around comparing the relative prestige of your various firms, speculating about perceived firm rankings, competing for bragging rights about bonuses, or complaining because your bonus wasn't quite as large as you expected, need to pause and reflect a bit.

Economies all over the world are currently tanking, with many foreign countries worse off than the US. Our country is in deep economic trouble, with the long-term effect of the federal stimulus plan not yet known but the short-term affect apparently doing little to shore up concerns in the securities markets.

These are early days yet, and if history is any guide, it will take two to three years for the full effects of this past fall's credit market collapse and stock market crash to play out in terms of business failures, unemployment and other social impacts. Anybody who says "the current unemployment rate isn't even close to that of 1932 or 1933" just isn't paying attention. In relation to the stock market crash we experienced last fall, the time period we are now in is roughly analogous to February of 1930, not 1932 or 1933. The shoes have begun to drop, as last week's moderately large round of law firm layoff attests, but things haven't gotten really bad -- yet.

Between 1929 and 1933, the administration of President Hoover concentrated on cutting taxes, cutting federal expenditures, and balancing the federal budget, in hopes of putting the economy back on an even keel. It didn't work worth spit. By the time that FDR was inaugurated, the policies of cutting taxes and government expenditures had been tried and found wanting, unemployment had increased drastically, and the private sector had proven itself completely unable to power itself out of the depression without government assistance. So if you want to whine and whiffle about President Obama and his supposedly "socialist" stimulus plan, go ahead -- but what he is really trying to do is save capitalism by using government expenditures to prime the pump for a renewal of private-sector business activities, and if you knew anything at all about history you would recognize that.

It is clearly possible that things could get far worse than they are now. I certainly hope that they do not, for my own sake as well as yours. We all have a lot riding on whether the federal economic stimulus plan, financial markets bailout plan and mortgage relief plan are successful, and those things remain to be seen.

In the meantime, you ought to consider, at least, the possibility that the partners at MoFo had some personal concern for the lives of their associates, and used bonus reductions as a buffer to reduce the number of associates and staff that they had to lay off in late January. You also ought to consider that preserving the jobs of as many of their associates as possible might be of higher priority to the firm's partners than preserving the firm's current perceived rank compared with other firms, regardless of location. I am neither a partner nor an associate at MoFo, I don't know any of the partners at that firm, and I have no personal motive to defend them. That is, however, how I see things on the merits.

We are all in a fight for economic survival due to current circumstances. That's true regardless of what firm we are with, what our employment status is, what we are currently getting paid, what city or state we are located in, or what our political views are. Those in red states, who belittle blue state firms because business still seems to be good where they are, are simply living on borrowed time. It takes a while for the impact of problems in the credit and securities markets to filter down fully to those handling transactional business in the middle of the country, but the problems will arrive at your doorstep in due time, and when they get there you will no longer have the luxury of deluding yourself that you are exempt from facing them.

Work hard, make some adjustments in your lifestyle, pay down your credit card debt, save as much as you can from your current salary and any bonus you are lucky enough to receive, and stop badmouthing those stuck with the task of allocating the impact of shortfalls between bonus reductions and layoffs. These are still early days yet, things will get worse before they get better, and you need to save some energy and indignation for things that really count, rather than grousing because your bonus wasn't quite as large as you hoped or somebody else got a larger one. Quit whining and stay focused -- this year and the next are going to be a hard ride, and both effort and luck will play a role in whether you make it through this upcoming period with your job intact. Don't be arrogant toward those who fall by the way, because you do not yet know whether you will become one of them. Sharpen up, kids. This is serious business, and it isn't going to be fun.

96: It's telling how you finish with fear-mongering and condescension. You, sir, are a scumbag.

Moreover, your perspective is preposterous. The facts, as I understand them, are straightforward. Your firm said it was going to pay associates X for competitive purposes. Instead, it paid associates far less than X. This screams tort and contract liability. You seem too dense to understand, but please free your mind from all distractions and consider: bonuses were, as you say, discretionary ***until you announced them***. See, when you announce a compensation package, and people choose the firm, remain at the firm, and work at the firm in expectation of that package, and then you pay a lower compensation package, that makes you a fraud. I hope that helps.

You try to excuse your deceit. As I understand it, your excuse is that you only made X ***million*** (or hundreds of thousands?) dollars profit per partner because the economy is really bad? It's been a while since I was in law school, but that doesn't really seem like "impossibility" or "impracticability." What do you think a jury would think??? You think the jury would conclude you were "forced by economic hardship" to dishonor your word? You, sir, are a moron.

You say that the rules against dishonesty and deceit only apply to conduct in court. Want to provide a cite for that? I am seriously considering whether to refer Morrison Foerster partners to their local state bars. You seem like a genius lawyer (not to mention know-it-all economist and historian) so maybe you can provide some case law to dissuade me.

96 - Would you please elaborate on your first bullet point, preferably with citation to case law in any jurisdiction in which MoFo has an office?

This seems a fairly straightforward breach of a unilateral contract. "You will be paid $X if you do Z." Why do you think 1) that an attorney must have insisted on a guaranteed bonus as a condition precedent and 2) that such an agreement must be memorialized in a bilateral document?

Neither of those propositions is obvious. In fact, they both seem wrong.

It is possible (but not certain) that by cutting the promised bonuses MoFo's partnership may have spared more jobs and ultimately inflicted less pain on its associates.

But that is quite irrelevant to the legal question: Is MoFo in breach of its contract with its associates?

Finally, management's admonition to its associates and counsel to conserve personal financial resources seems condescending. What happens to my paycheck is no one's business but my own.

Since I would never accuse MoFo management of condescension, I take this as fair warning that further salary and bonus reductions are being contemplated.

There can’t be any real dispute that the MoFo bonus memo and associates’ subsequent performance created a unilateral contract that the partnership then breached. If you don’t believe me, believe the Orrick lawyers who wrote the following article and the California courts who have ruled on the issue:

http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/332.pdf

(Incidentally, this is probably why Orrick stuck to its promise and paid.) Since there probably won’t be a MoFo associate who will take the mantle of named plaintiff-ship, we’ll never know for sure.

As for the lecturing about the economy, I’m sure no one would disagree that these are scary times, perhaps without precedent. But MoFo is not a charity. It’s not even a school or a hospital or a think-tank for that matter. It is a business run by a partnership whose members earn, on average over *one million* dollars per year. That they could not come through with their promised payment to associates is, quite frankly, obscene.

As to whether the bonus revocation could have saved staff and associate jobs, there is a missing variable here: how many associates actually made their hours and would have received a bonus anyway, particularly where work was slow? It’s unlikely that the amount of money “saved” could have kept anyone employed for long, but it’s hard to know. But even if these employees were kept on the payroll for a few more months, how would that change the firm’s long-term calculus that there would never be enough work for them? Is it really efficient to keep people on who don’t have anything to do?

Agree about the patronizing tone of KW’s email. People don’t need to be told how to budget, particularly from someone who promised in writing to pay them a specific amount, then, after they stayed on at their job and worked hard to fulfill their end of the bargain, took back the promise.

I don't think the firm's decision to cut bonuses saved attorney or staff jobs -- esp. since separated attorneys were given their bonuses.

In the wider economy companies are laying off employees,cutting bonuses and freezing salaries. These companies are reporting huge losses that threaten their existence. The action they are taking is necessary and essential for their survival. BUT the MoFo partners made very nice profits in 2008 - $1.2 million per partner. They have simply made a decision, a greedy selfish one, to look after themselves. They are not prepared to share the pain or their wealth. They spin the alternative lifestyle "culture". Their propanganda machine is relentless. But surely even the most committed "believer" at the firm now knows that she or he is working at a "C grade" law firm owned and run by selfish greedy individuals. Hanging out in San Francisco is the only upside of working here.

92: why does the morale in NY suck? At least you get a shot at a contribution bonus in 2009 for hitting hours (although I suppose you could be worried that it might be taken away). Still, associates in every other MoFo office have their salaries frozen and so will be making $10,000 to $25,000 less than their NY counterparts at their exact same class level hitting the same hours. Many junior, midlevel, and lateral associates joined MoFo's California & DC offices when the payscale was the same w/ NY (with bonuses traditionally falling behind NY, although that did not end up being the case this year). I understand morale has taken a hit in CA and DC re: all of this (pay freeze and bonus writedown), but why also in NY (no pay freeze and NY market bonus)? Seems like the firm did what it said it was going to do with NY compensation?

@102, morale was already bottomed out because the atmosphere at MoFo-NY = fucking miserable and hideous. That being said, from the memo, which was obviously drafted by someone who was making every effort to hide the ball (the same way they do when it comes to partnership track issues and everything else that is of any importance to associates), it looks like they got their money, or most of it, so fuck them crybabies.

What's the wrap up on California firms? Seems OMM paid the highest bonuses according to its earlier announced schedule, didn't freeze, and hasn't had layoffs. Quinn paid half Skaddens, didn't freeze, but no layoffs. Latham froze, paid half-Skaddens, and may or may not have had stealth layoffs. MoFo wrote down bonuses so has bonuses all over the map (some associates are making less than the half-Skaddens, some making more than the Skaddens), had layoffs, and froze salaries. Orrick may have written down bonuses (some say yes, some say no), may or may not be having stealth layoffs, and is freezing salaries. Gibson paid half-Skaddens, did not freeze, and no layoff news yet. The CA offices of New York-based firms did not freeze, paid NY-based bonuses, and no layoffs as of yet.

Is all of this right? Am I missing something? Seems the California compensation market is really all over the map, which is very different from the NY market (Wachtell then Skadden, then pretty much everyone else). Pre-2002, was there this much difference between California and New York? Or this much variance within California?

morale?

Well it is now every person for themselves. You can`t build positive morale where the partners are weak, selfish and greedy individuals. They are generally unimpressive individuals - totally lame. All the decent partners have retired or left the firm. Geeks and dorks never inspire.

Some firm out there has to realize the potential of a class action. And surely someone has the guts to be a representative.

Has Quinn actually confirmed that there have been no layoffs, including stealth layoffs?

No rational strategy at a national level. No rational strategy for international practise. Can't bottom feed in a recession. There is only one way for this ship. Down. A severe partner cull is probably their next step. Busted any of your partners tidying up their resumes? Yep.

mofos aren't trying to keep anyone. everyone got the less than 10k bonus. even (extremely) high billers.