Not for nothing, but 12:1 would be "the odds," not "the line."

1

First!

First!

First!

You mean, "Fourth! Fifth! Sixth!"?

7th!

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

Also, 12-1 is way too generous. I'll offer 20-1 MWE freezes come March.

"The firm indicated that it would reconsidered the salary decision in March. I'll open the line at 12 to 1 against March bringing better salary news."

I'll open the line at 12 to 1 against Elie learning to proofread by March.

I want to deliver a STINKY PUSSY FART on MWE and Elie's face - wtf is a slurpee freeze - this terminology is more TTT than MysTTTAL himself.

Counting is offensive. Professionals do not count out loud. Please moderate.

Professional Attorney

Any more details? Were any practice areas targeted specifically?

Paul Hastings is next.

Nice Daschle reference, Elie.

14- Paul Hastings has been shedding attorneys but keeping it quiet.

It is impossible to push female associates down the stairs quietly.

Paul Hastings

Sutherland had layoffs two weeks ago.

boo for stealing ropes' "immunity" metaphor

P.S., MysTTTal, I challenge you to a heads-up poker match. You choose the game (hold'em, stud, omaha, razz). If I win, no more LOLcats or song lyrics in posts for the rest of the year. If you win, I buy you either a 3 month subscription to NutriSystem or 50 bags of cheetos -- your choice.

DLA Piper did sizeable stealth layoffs during January...

first

McDermoTTT. Only one extra "t" needed!

Any confirmation about layoffs from Milbank?

They took our jobs!
DER TERK ERR JERBBS!!

Holy economy fail batman.

Confirmed -- Milbank is shedding lawyers left and right.

Is it just me, or has the quality of commenting actually gone DOWN since they started policing the comments?

This said... wow sucks to be at MWE. I have friends there, hope they are all still employed.

Anybody know if they let any first years go?

Would anyone like a warm moist towelette?

What about that garbage firm Strook? When will they announce layoffs?

What about that garbage firm Strook? When will they announce layoffs?

Can someone moderate this Jim Mora idiot? That shit was moderately amusing...once.

Comment 28 is offensive. Please reconfigure.

even a blog as self-critical as atl titles it McDermott Will & Emery Cuts 60
instead of 149
which would count the staffers as people
but sometimes i forget
that at your core
what drove you to this profession
is a lack of soul
may you rot in -
ahh just kidding but come on freaks, the caste system y'all are perpetuating is what got us here. 149 WERE LAID OFF. 24 classes and a test really isn't all that impressive in the grand scheme of things, yet that's all that separates you from the 'untouchable' and unmentionable staffers. fix the headline or it will be fixed for you

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

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

4/25/2008 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan DC <7 Mix Yes
5/12/2008 Paul Hastings US 22 Yes Yes
5/28/2008 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal US 37 No Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome Philadelphia 6 Yes Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome NYC 2 Yes Yes
6/5/2008 Blank Rome DC 1 Yes Yes
6/11/2008 Thacher Proffitt & Wood US 36 No Yes
6/23/2008 Powell Goldstein US <10 No Yes
7/1/2008 Patton Boggs Dallas 4 Yes Yes
7/1/2008 Patton Boggs US 5 Yes Yes
7/14/2008 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LA, SF, San Diego 15 Unk No
7/16/2008 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman East Coast <10 Unk No
7/30/2008 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft NYC, Charlotte, London, DC 96 No Yes
8/4/2008 DLA Piper London 1 No Yes
8/6/2008 Sullivan & Worcester Boston & NY 7 Yes No

8/12/2008 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett global 30 Yes No
8/21/2008 Morgan & Finnegan NYC ~4 No Yes
9/22/2008 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer unknown <5 No Yes
9/25/2008 Heller Ehrman US ~600? No Yes
10/2/2008 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal US 25 No Yes
10/14/2008 Clifford Chance NYC & DC 20 No Yes
10/20/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf Charlotte 8 No Yes
10/20/2008 Katten Muchin Rosenman US 21 No Yes
10/21/2008 Jenner & Block US 10 No Yes
10/22/2008 Dechert US 10 to 30 Yes No
10/23/2008 O'Melveny & Myers LA 5 Yes Yes
10/27/2008 White & Case Milan 14 No Yes
10/28/2008 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner US ~500? No Yes
10/30/2008 Bell Boyd & Lloyd Chicago 10 No Yes
11/3/2008 McKee Nelson NYC 13 No Yes

11/3/2008 McKee Nelson DC 4 No Yes
11/11/2008 Loeb & Loeb US 8 Yes Yes
11/11/2008 White & Case US, London 70 No Yes
11/12/2008 Moore Van Allen Charlotte 20 No Yes
11/13/2008 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe US 40 No Yes
11/14/2008 Greenberg Traurig NYC unk No No
11/19/2008 Brown Rudnick US 20 No Yes
11/20/2008 Mayer Brown US 33 No Yes
11/20/2008 Squire Sanders US <30 Yes Yes
11/21/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf NYC 5 to 11 Unk No
11/21/2008 Fried Frank US 15 Yes No
12/1/2008 Fried Frank US 15 Yes No
12/2/2008 McDermott Will & Emery US 20 Unk No
12/3/2008 Reed Smith UK 11 No Yes
12/4/2008 Proskauer Rose US 35 No Yes

12/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf NY 11 No Yes
12/4/2008 Dewey & LeBoeuf LA 1 No Yes
12/5/2008 Seyfarth Shaw US 30 No Yes
12/10/2008 Pircher Nichols & Meeks LA, Chicago 8 No Yes
12/10/2008 Howrey Unk ~10 Yes Yes
12/15/2008 Wolf Block US 15 No Yes
12/15/2008 Drinker Biddle US 20 No No
12/17/2008 Gunderson Dettmer US Unk Yes No
1/7/2009 Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 15-25 Yes No
1/7/2009 Dickstein Shapiro NYC & DC 10 No Yes
1/8/2009 Parker Poe NC/SC 13 No Yes
1/8/2009 Baker & McKenzie NYC 6 No Yes
1/8/2009 Clifford Chance London ~80 No Yes
1/8/2009 Cahill Gordon Unk Unk Unk No
1/9/2009 Wildman Harrold Chicago 10 Yes Yes

THE POINT IS THAT YOU WILL ONLY GET A JOB IN THE OBLAHMUH ADMINISTRATION IF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR TAXES. ASK "DAKOTA TOM" AND "BELOW THE LINE DEDUCTION TINY TIM" AS THEY KNOW.

1/9/2009 Loeb & Loeb US 4 Unk No
1/13/2009 Dewey & LeBoeuf LA 8 Unk Yes
1/14/2009 Foley & Hoag Boston 17 No Yes
1/16/2009 Blank Rome NYC & Philly >/=12 No Yes
1/21/2009 Cooley Godward US 52 No Yes
1/22/2009 Cadwalader NYC 3 Unk Yes
1/22/2009 Cadwalader Charlotte 6 Unk Yes
1/22/2009 Allen & Overy NYC 3 Yes Unk
1/23/2009 Choate Boston 15 No Yes
1/26/2009 Wilson Sonsini US 45 No Yes
1/28/2009 Morgan Lewis US ~50 Unk No
1/28/2009 Morrison & Foerster US 53 No Yes
1/29/2009 Fish & Richardson US 49 Mixed Yes
1/29/2009 Linklaters London 100-120 Unk Yes
2/3/2009 McDermott Will & Emery US 60 No Yes

29: Yes. At least of few that I know of were first years.

24 classes and a test really isn't all that impressive in the grand scheme of things
__________________________________________

So go ahead and take those 24 classes and a test.

9 is hilarious.

Jack Abramoff's place is keeping quiet, too, but stuff is afoot, if this clown of an EIC would ever get to the bottom of it.

And suddenly, I don't feel as though I've won the championship game.
:(

-Pop bottles

At least they are classy about it.

Compare that to the Latham-style layoffs at Sidley, of which there hasn't been much coverage.

How many did DLA cut? What offices?

35. This is a fair point. But when I do it the other way, I get criticized, by some readers and *by the firms* for hyperbole.

I've tried to balance this in part by focusing on just staff layoffs, which a lot of other publications don't even report on.
--Elie

I hope the laid off associates are thankful that their PERFORMANCE BASED layoffs were euphemistically described as economy based. Fact is, unless everyone in your practice group got laid off, your layoff was PERFORMANCE BASED, since you wouldn't have been laid off if you had PERFORMED better. Not enough work you say? Well how did the non-laid off associates survive? By putting forth better work product, leading to more assignments for them and less for you.

50 - you hit the nail on the head. LOL LAZIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

King and Spalding stealth layoffs in ATL last week!!!!!!

47, what about layoffs at Sidley? Tell me more.

anyone know what offices?

to people like 47 -- i would think the people who have been laid off in a "stealth" manner would prefer not to have any publicity surrounding it, so that they can utilize the limited time they have been given to find a new position. i would think these people would prefer to be looking for a job from a position of strength (at least, when it comes to perceptions) rather than having to face the job market and prospective employers (who seem to be shrinking in numbers by the minute) with the added baggage that for whatever reason the firm's official party line may have been, you were at the bottom of the heap and thought to be the most dispensible amongst your colleagues and told to pack up and find a new job. so why don't you just simmer down, keep quiet, and at least give some of these people at least a fighting chance out there?

I'm surprised more hasn't come out about Sidley. They were huge in structured finance and even before this crisis, their RPL was pretty low for their vault rank.

50 - What a nice guy you are. I'm sure you have lots of friends and are loved by those around you for your class and tact.

Elie @ 49: no comma after "criticized." Thanks.

57 don't pay attention to 50 - he says the same on every single layoff article.

How do I know if I'm gay?

You'll get yours 50 when you inevitably get passed over for partner for your complete lack of humanity, personality and book. Staffing on cases at least at my firm is pretty random. You can get stuck on a case that blows up and busy all year or get stuck on a case that ends in early settlement and be screwed for a few months. You can be staffed on cases for a particular client that has a hot year or a slow year. Some associates also get fed by partners that were once very productive, but have lost clients. In better years there would be enough work for everyone, but the work can be limited in a bad year. So saying it is purely a product of laziness or is some how performance based is ridiculous. It may be in some cases, but certainly not all. Grow up.

Post 39 says Mayer cut 33. Their website shows that the Chicago real estate group has gone from 31 to 19 in one week. Hard to believe that reduction doesn't indicate an overall number larger than 33.

39 & Elie: Then you have a choice to make. Consider staffers as people and tell the real numbers, or only count attorneys and give an inaccurate number of people who were laid off, which pleases *the firms*.

And I'd really like to know what departments were affected. "Staff" doesn't equal secretaries and paralegals; it includes a lot of other titles.

Yo 50:

In case you haven't noticed, the assignment of projects is extremely situational. If Associate A happens to be busy when a big project comes down the pipe, Associate B will get the big project. Then when A has nothing to do, B is still working. If the firm is slow when A needs work, A gets laid off.

In other words, this could have nothing to do with performance.

P.S. You are an ass.

Hear! Hear! for the poster who states that staffers are people too.

Hear! Hear! for the poster who states that staffers are people too.

It's time to put aside the snark and have some compassion for our professional colleagues who are affected by the financial crisis. Let's not be petty in a poor attempt at humor, but let's wish them well in these tough times.

Hear! Hear! for the poster who states that staffers are people too.

64, if A is competent, the firm would keep him around since a firm is obviously never slow forever unless it's going out of business, in which case 50's point still stands. Notice how in your example, B was kept around when there was no work, in the time before the big project came down.

It's more like this:
If Associate A and C happen to be busy when a big project comes down the pipe, Associate B will get the big project. Then when A and C have nothing to do, B is still working. When the firm is slow and both A and C need work, A gets laid off because of his incompetence and poor performance. C is kept around in case the next big project comes down, just like B was kept around for a while before B got the big project.

Fact is, unless everyone in your practice group got laid off, your layoff was PERFORMANCE BASED, since you wouldn't have been laid off if you had PERFORMED better.
__________________________________________

But what if they layoff everyone in one practice group, yet keep all the other practice groups -- doesn't that mean that the laid off practice group would have been kept if only they had PERFORMED better? I mean, wouldn't all those structured finance associates have been kept on if they had PERFORMED better, even if there is no more structure finance?

What's really interesting about MWE's layoffs is how many of the laid-off attorneys are women. The gender discrimination is ridiculous at MWE.

70, there's no individualized presumption of poor performance when they lay off an entire practice group. You could have been a hard worker, but got unluckily placed into a practice group filled with lazies, and it is not reasonable to expect you alone to pull up the group.

69..

You miss the point. For simplicity, assume that the department only has two associates, B is busier than A at the moment, and that the department must get rid of one associate (with the other layoffs firm wide).

It does happen, and I've seen it happen. Timing is everything.

JMBM (smaller firm in san francisco/la) also laid off staff people yesterday ... only 3 in san francisco, and 15 in l.a.

Elie (#49) - your problem solving skills are hilarious. You could have just made the headline: "McDermott Will & Emery cuts 60 associates and 89 staffers." Duh.

73, for simplicity, let us pretend that we live in the real world, where firing decisions are more nuanced than who happens to be on a billing matter at the minute of decision-making, and where work can be assigned to new people if necessary.

I hate having to ask this, believe me, but what the hell does TTT mean? I see it used all the time, but I'm not familiar with it.

TTT means something 'sucks'. Any other meaning it used to have is long gone.

71, from what I'm hearing, the percentage of women in one practice group in one of McDermott's offices just went from 35% to 22% because only women were cut.

The ship be sinking...

Anyone know what offices were most affected or have any kind of breakdown by office?

50 and 69. 73 is right you miss the point. B was not busy in a different time. We are dealing with a serious economic crisis if you haven't noticed and firms like all other businesses need to build surpluses to weather what could be a bad 2009/2010. In order to save money and avoid collapse, A is not given the chance that B was given in a different time. There is no guarantee right now that work will pick up in the foreseeable future so tough decisions are made. People can get wrapped up in situational lay offs.

70- Do you understand firm business models? Let's say you've practiced in structured finance for 5 or more years. Do you think the firm is going to be willing to transition you elsewhere at such a high cost when you're that senior?

Which offices and practice groups were affected?

What's really interesting about MWE's layoffs is how many of the laid-off attorneys are women. The gender discrimination is ridiculous at MWE.
-----------------------------------------
#71 - how do you know women were cut?

TTT is used by posters on AutoAdmit to belittle others. I wish they'd stop posting here. It was much more civil before they got here.

84, 71 here. I know because I know the people that were cut from my practice group.

Tell me more about the layoffs at Milbank

86- I am also at MWE. Any way we can chat without disclosing our names to everyone on this board?

86, 88 - how many were cut from ny office? and from which departments?

86, 88 - how many were cut from ny office? and from which departments?

Hey list guy,

How about adding the A&B layoffs in early Jan. (confirmed at least 10).

My friend was one of those laid off. Found out at noon today. He's pretty doggone frugal, so he'll be okay for a while, but I thank my lucky stars I'm in a small firm that's still getting clients.

S&C to merge with Linklaters? Elie, get on this!!

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=136577

93: Good article, though it's purely speculative. S&C (purportedly) analogizing itself to Cindy Crawford is hilarious.

Funny Puff ad

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022720.php

As one of the MWE associates remaining, I have the following comments:

I've worked with at least 3 attorneys who got the boot yesterday. I'm mystified by their selection. These were all good attorneys, all hard-working contributors. I really don't know any sub-par attorneys within MWE, so I'm certain that it would be difficult to pick any for layoffs, but these 3 were/are terrific. I'm especially interested to investigate HOW the list was chosen. I spoke with one of the associates regarding his particular circumstances and he informed me that, it's a rare condition, this day and age, to read any good news on the newspaper page. Love and tradition of the grand design, some people say it's even harder to find. Well then there must be some magic clue inside these tearful walls Cause all I see is a tower of dreams real love burstin' out of every seam.

As days go by, we're gonna fill our house with happiness. The moon may cry, we're gonna smother the blues with tenderness.

When days go by, there's room for you, room for me,
for gentle hearts an opportunity. As days go by, it's the bigger love of the family.

What about MWE's large class of "income" (nonequity) partners? Have any of them gotten the boot?

Confirmed: Alston & Bird has been laying off associates in Atlanta, including first years.

96 = Erkel

Milbank has been doing stealth layoffs. I can confirm that most if not all groups were affected and the rumor is that there are more to come.

Milbank has been doing stealth layoffs. I can confirm that most if not all groups were affected and the rumor is that there are more to come.

Milbank has been doing stealth layoffs. I can confirm that most if not all groups were affected and the rumor is that there are more to come.

96 -- you get a 175

Hey has Milbank been doing stealth layoffs?

Why is the first half of 96's post in English and the second half in Engrish?

My suspicion is that MWE has installed an insidious filters that garbles posts criticizing the firm.

This is 105 - I meant to say FILTER, not FILTERS, so back off, grammar nazis. I ended up producing Engrish myself...

105 - He's singing the Family Matters (the Erkel show) theme song.

Bravo --35
A voice of reason and compassion among all of the a$$es.

97 asks: "What about MWE's large class of 'income' (nonequity) partners? Have any of them gotten the boot?"

Yes.

What's the story in OC, anyone know?

Could anyone with information about gender discrepancies in the layoffs please contact me? I'm a reporter but we can talk off the record.

amanda_becker@dailyjournal.com or
amanda.m.becker@gmail.com.

Thx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBqcEo5CNTQ

Ten points to whoever knows the name of the guy who plays Carl from Family Matters (without looking it up). This is one of the very few pieces of entertainment trivia I know.

.
.
.
.
.
Reginald VelJohnson. Yesss!

52-did King and Spalding really conduct stealth layoffs?

I fucked several MWE partners up the ass, two of them jizzed in their hand after I shot my load up their ass doggie style in my office

Bammzer is the new Bachelorette!

MWE income partners are nothing more than associates. Actually, its worse. Everyone knows they throw that title around to anyone who wants it. Makes all of us income partners feel totally worthless.

Speaking of stinky pussy farts:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/58599/original.jpg

There is a MWE income partner who is class of 2005

118: who?

Bob Underwood

I stand corrected, there are TWO MWE income partners who are class of 2005

This is not the first round of layoffs. They let people go in November too.

121: Who is the other one?

Being a woman at MWE is very hard. You do not get mentored the way the guys do. I have seen many young men join the firm and within weeks have relationships with men in leadership. Those relationships last and take on greater meaning as the male attorneys move up the ladder. That never happens for women. The men don't mentor women and the women in leadership are awful. It is a no win situation and I am so jealous of the guys.

Women are judged differently as well. One of the biggest rainmakers at the firm was talking about a female that he did not think was a good attorney. When I asked why, he said "have you seen her?" That same partner has said he won't give women work that involves travel, etc. because he does not want to interfere with their families. He didn't think to ask the women if they wanted that consideration and it actually resulted in women getting less interesting and challenging work.

Some will point to certain women partners, like the Washington litigation and corporate ladies, the Chicago tax lady or the Boston environmental lady as proof that things aren't so bad. But that would be total nonsense. The DC women partners do nothing to help their associates get ahead, and those other women who do try lack the power to be effective. Promising women keep leaving the firm for better opportunities because no one looks out for them (example, OC defection to Jones Day).

When the firm starts promoting women in equal numbers to men, especially to capital partners, and when screwing someone is not the easiest road to success, then I will believe that things have changed. Until then, get some Advil because that cement ceiling hurts.

123 - Someone in the DC office

117 - Hey asshole, my 10 year old boy is watching Justice League next o me when I clicked on your link. How about a heads up next time, douche.

126 -- you clicked on a link described as "stinky pussy farts". I wonder at what you require in the way of a "heads up".

126--I haven't laughed this hard reading above the law in about 6 months. Truly sorry about your boy, but imagining your reaction and responding to 117 is DAMN funny!

Hey, does anyone know if the Houston office was affected? They just opened their doors about a year ago and I was wondering if MWE was dumb enough to tell the Houston lateral market, "leave your current firm for all that MWE has to offer. . . except job security."

Harvey Freishat is not the leader that the firm needs. Time to step down, Harvey. The place is a mess. Partners are defecting. Associate and partner hours are dwindling. Morale is at an all-time low. Smart clients are seeking the services of other firms. Expect another round of layoffs in April.

126-what if my son was next to me when I read asshole and douche? Far worse than "farts" and pussy which he thinks is a cat

In my opinion, Harvey is a weak leader. He is not likeable and he lacks the ability to motivate people. I have never once felt like he cared about me or anyone else at the firm. This makes it hard to trust him, especially in hard times because you cannot believe most of what comes out of his mouth. Every time I see him, I want to deck him.

#132 Don't hold anything back now--how do you REALLY feel about Harvey?

130 & 132,

Agreed. MWE is falling apart with Harvey at the helm. Imagine no longer receiving his annoying firm-wide voicemails. How could we survive? Partners will continue to abandon ship if Harvey stays.

I don't know Harvey from Adam and I work at MWE. But there is no respect within the partnership for one another; why don't we put one of the new class of 2005 partners at the helm? Since you can make partner at year 3 what happens at year 10- do you get another title? They surely can't do a worse job!!
-Bitter fourth year who hasn't made partner ... yet...

McDermott associate here. I can tell you that among those in the crosshairs for both the stealth and official layoffs were anyone who actually took the firm's pro bono policy at its word and devoted significant time to pro bono matters. The firm claims that it counts an unlimited number of pro bono hours as full billable client work. In reality, the firm holds pro bono hours against associates unless they are on top of the 2000 billable hour minimum. When it came to layoffs, many of the affected associates were high pro bono billers. While any business obviously has a right to demand profitability from its employees, something stinks in Denmark when the same business continuously touts its pro bono policy and pro bono achievements for PR and recruitment gain.

This is great for recruitment - come to MWE, you can make partner in 3 years

136 - pro bono = no work to do = no $ for firm = get your ass fired!

its a business! those associates should have learned that long before they started work at a firm.

To 124 - It seems that McDermott's leadership tolerates an abusive law firm environment for women. For example, in DC there was an income partner who sexually assaulted a female associate. The only repercussion for him was that he was moved from the one floor to the another floor, without any consideration of the female personnel on the new floor. The firm's leadership, with full knowledge of this, gave him great recommendations and set him up as a partner at a competing law firm (some would say with a better reputation and more money).The female associate was basically ostracized and driven out of the firm. The firm even tolerates promotion decisions by partner spouses at the firm. Since that incidence there have been numerous other examples of unequal treatment. I don't mean to be cruel, but the way I see it is that McDermott is not going to change. You can either leave or find some way to accept the toxic environment, otherwise you will drive yourself crazy wanting something you will never get at McDermott. If you survive and make it, I hope you will
become the kind of Partner that is very much needed to serve as a positive role model for other women -since none exist at the moment.

To -111 - Just talk to the female attorneys who have left the firm. You should be able to find at least a few from every office.

*mwe insider*

MWE associate here. Want to know how bad the gender discrimination is? The firm is saying they chose people based on low billable hours. Well, one of the laid-off attorneys was on maternity leave last year, which explains why her hours were low for several months. Lousy bastards.

To 140 & 139, do you know which offices were most affected?

142-147, thanks I needed 6 posts to understand your point!

143-148...you make me tired.

MWE ex-associate here (as of yesterday). During my pink slip session I was told the firm is $20 million behind after the first month in 2009 versus 2008 and that more cuts are being planned in the next 4-8 weeks, including taking a look at income partners. I suspect by July MWE will be half its size if the economic downturn continues. If you are slow like I was, I would get out or at least start looking. The place sucks anyways -- there are better opportunities and much better people out there period. These guys live in an ivory tower and are driven by greed -- no wonder they are in a tailspin. Good riddance!

MWE ex-associate here (as of yesterday). During my pink slip session I was told the firm is $20 million behind after the first month in 2009 versus 2008 and that more cuts are being planned in the next 4-8 weeks, including taking a look at income partners. I suspect by July MWE will be half its size if the economic downturn continues. If you are slow like I was, I would get out or at least start looking. The place sucks anyways -- there are better opportunities and much better people out there period. These guys live in an ivory tower and are driven by greed -- no wonder they are in a tailspin. Good riddance!

MWE ex-associate here (as of yesterday). During my pink slip session I was told the firm is $20 million behind after the first month in 2009 versus 2008 and that more cuts are being planned in the next 4-8 weeks, including taking a look at income partners. I suspect by July MWE will be half its size if the economic downturn continues. If you are slow like I was, I would get out or at least start looking. The place sucks anyways -- there are better opportunities and much better people out there period. These guys live in an ivory tower and are driven by greed -- no wonder they are in a tailspin. Good riddance!

MWE ex-associate here (as of yesterday). During my pink slip session I was told the firm is $20 million behind after the first month in 2009 versus 2008 and that more cuts are being planned in the next 4-8 weeks, including taking a look at income partners. I suspect by July MWE will be half its size if the economic downturn continues. If you are slow like I was, I would get out or at least start looking. The place sucks anyways -- there are better opportunities and much better people out there period. These guys live in an ivory tower and are driven by greed -- no wonder they are in a tailspin. Good riddance!

MWE ex-associate here (as of yesterday). During my pink slip session I was told the firm is $20 million behind after the first month in 2009 versus 2008 and that more cuts are being planned in the next 4-8 weeks, including taking a look at income partners. I suspect by July MWE will be half its size if the economic downturn continues. If you are slow like I was, I would get out or at least start looking. The place sucks anyways -- there are better opportunities and much better people out there period. These guys live in an ivory tower and are driven by greed -- no wonder they are in a tailspin. Good riddance!

MWE ex-associate here (as of yesterday). During my pink slip session I was told the firm is $20 million behind after the first month in 2009 versus 2008 and that more cuts are being planned in the next 4-8 weeks, including taking a look at income partners. I suspect by July MWE will be half its size if the economic downturn continues. If you are slow like I was, I would get out or at least start looking. The place sucks anyways -- there are better opportunities and much better people out there period. These guys live in an ivory tower and are driven by greed -- no wonder they are in a tailspin. Good riddance!

Any information about which offices and which practice groups were particularly impacted?

How many were lost from NY? Which practice groups?

I am in LA and its real scary here. THe hallways are empty, the IP group is gone, there is no corporate group and the health department which was a marquee for the firm is now virtually absent.

Thanks Harvey or the 3rd year partner you put in your place!

152 - Is that as a result of a combination of layoffs and partner defections to other firms?

153 - Why don't you ask your fearless leader who leaves those long voicemails (maybe one day we will move to webcasts like every other law firm did in 2000).

To 139. I can think of at least one or two women who are role models and succeeded here in spite of the toxic environment. Problem is, they are marginalized rather than recognized making them hard to see. It is part of the culture, taught by example. People see the issue (laterals too) when they first arrive, but those who have the guts or principles to stand up to the autocratic management quickly acquiesce or end up leaving because nobody supports them. Classic fear based management. Now that the money isn't flowing like it was and the people who remain are here for the money, it will be interesting to see what happens.

153, it is partner defections like those that went to Goodwin Proctor, White & Case, Weil, Jones Day, it is partners being de-equitized, it is income partners and associates being canned, it is a lack of leadership with an interest in building something sustainable and falling instead for the quick buck.

144-148, are you sure about the numbers? The firm guards that kind of info like crazy. Also, doesn't your non-disclosure require you to keep quite if you want your three months' severance? If those numbers are not being discussed in each pink slip session (and I don't think they are), then you might be outing yourself.

157=Harvey Freistat

158 - Or the third year lawyer in charge?

On the 3rd year partner, I do find it funny for a couple of reasons:

- The firm values law school pedigree. The firm fights against hiring top of the class from schools like DePaul, Golden Gate, Catholic, U of Houston and similar schools saying they are not the best candidates, yet they promote someone as a 2005 Suffolk grad.

- The firm tells people all the time that you need at least 6 years of law experience to be considered and they will never break that rule.

However, I can see treating someone with a PhD in science doing patent work differently from someone straight out of law school. The guy really is in a different league when it comes to patent prosecution and it is hard to begrudge treating him like a partner.

There are two third year partners - look at DC

I can't figure the DC one out.

Found the one in DC http://tinyurl.com/c383nj

Common link seems to be the PhD and patent prosecution

152 - You must be a first year (or otherwise unaware). Its been like that in LA for a year or more.

156 - Add defections to Orrick to your list.

156 is correct. MWE is a sinking ship. More layoffs by the end of April. I'm just sayin'. No non-disclosure agreement required.

Come on folks - not everyone is going to leave MWE. The firm has a wonderful chairperson, people from great schools, tons of women equity partner role models who were promoted within the system, the absolute best corporate practice relied upon by fortune 100 companies and really interesting repeat clients.

--A Second Year MWE Associate Hoping She Can Make Partner Next Year

164: - 152 is not only a first year but also must be on the 37th floor.

Floor 38 & 39 are busy. And health, at least in Los Angeles, is busy and healthy.

What makes McDermott so much worse than other BigLaw firms? The comments about McDermott seem harsher than for other firms.

167: are you joking? You must be a health law partner in Los Angeles trying to put up a false front. Nice try, though. Everyone is slow. Just look at time entries.

MWE = sinking ship. Just watch. No leadership and lots of greed. No non-disclosure agreement required for this comment. All the cheerleaders on here are just MWE plants who will soon find themselves pink slipped too.

The nation's leading health firm? With what partner in LA? Are we doing anything with the new administration? In any national organizations? Are people billing 2200 hours a year? Do our clients give us the big deals that make the headlines?

I guess we spend all of our time on firm management. And it works.

Look it doesnt really matter. Everyone at MWE knows the truth. When was the last time someone from a good LA/OC firm came to MWE? Anyone from Gibson? OMM? Latham? Nope. We take in the poor sad folks from other places... Thats okay, its the only humanitarian streak the firm has.

---Go Management Committee (Thanks for all the hard work - your hours are truly beneficial!)

I was a laid off first year. Save all of your 'performance related' hoopla because I haven't even had a performance review.

Last year, about this time, there was all this drama about McDermott skimping on bonuses. It bothered me, but I kept my belief that it was a good firm and remained optimistic.

I'll just say this: if you are a law student and have a chance to avoid coming here, do so. At least for a year or two. It's not worth it coming here if you can help it.

To 168, it's different because what is happening at MWE is sinister. A lot of behind the scenes activity focused on benefiting a few in management and their favorites rather than the firm as a whole. Ask around and see how they have been spending money lately and who they are protecting. Their attempt at secrecy and deflection of blame could not survive the economic downturn as the greedy masses are not getting paid. With the illusion of "keep quiet and keep your job" now gone, people are talking.

155 - Have they really succeeded if they are marginalized?

And if they are always sexually harassed?

Maybe its success to get moved floors.

163 - How can the DC 3rd year be promoted because she is a patent prosecutor if she hasn't passed the patent bar?

Guys from my high school prosecuted patents without passing the patent bar, you just get someone else to sign the papers

But was it a big deal?

MWE does not have a transparent management approach. The capital partners don't even see all the materials applicable to running the firm. That kind of management creates distrust and a lot of backbiting. You always feel like there is a subtext -- something that you don't know. This is compounded by a leader who cannot answer a simple yes/no question with a yes or no.

Usually, when people are all giving the same message, you start to have faith in management. MWE does not convey a consistent message about anything. So when you get one story from one person and another from another, you are never sure who you can trust.

This has happened in the review process. Partners will tell associates that they are on track. Even when the associate asks point blank: am I going to get promoted. Then, 6 months later, they are telling you you don't fit or your fired. When you hear this kind of stuff, you second guess all the good things said about you.

I don't think the firm will tank. They did not have a bad year compared to a lot of firms and their legendary cheapness means they have saved every penny in the cushions, but I do think it is a sick working environment. It will make you depressed.

129,

As best as I can tell, no one from Houston was hit. All the Bracewell associates that declined to jump ship still made a smart move. The pressure on Houston to produce is very high and the billing rates are way above Houston market. Not sure the market can support it or that the teams can meet their targets.

What about the trial group (general litigation for you lucky non-MWEers out there)? Nobody talks about that. We have a leader, but we have no career track, no professional development, no clear standards for promotion to capital partner (how was it determined last year??), and no development of that next tier. We have no trial presence in LA, SV or OC. NY's trial group is basically all gone or laid off.

Maybe I need to get a PhD, do nothing for business development, lack maturity, lack confidence with my clients and then get promoted at year 3!

The trial group has a leader?

How is the SV office being affected? No one's talked about them.

50 - you guys just don't get it. 90% of associate work product - ALL associate work product - is unusable crap. You are all completely interchangeable.

The only "performance" that will get you laid off in litigation is 1) miscalculating a deadline, 2) missing the most important case, or 3) not billing enough. That's it. When you guys get laid off it's for one of those reasons, and when a lot of you are let go it's always #3.

What's really great is that the remaining MWE lawyers are hosting a seminar on 2/10 called "Practical Advice for Distressed Time." It will include a discussion of "People Issues" including layoffs. I wonder if the firm will ask its pink slippers to participate? Perhaps they can treat it as their exit interview. . .

http://www.mwe.com/info/practical_advice/

You can't make this up.

What's really great is that the remaining MWE lawyers are hosting a seminar on 2/10 called "Practical Advice for Distressed Time." It will include a discussion of "People Issues" including layoffs. I wonder if the firm will ask its pink slippers to participate? Perhaps they can treat it as their exit interview. . .

http://www.mwe.com/info/practical_advice/

You can't make this up.

What's really great is that the remaining MWE lawyers are hosting a seminar on 2/10 called "Practical Advice for Distressed Time." It will include a discussion of "People Issues" including layoffs. I wonder if the firm will ask its pink slippers to participate? Perhaps they can treat it as their exit interview. . .

http://www.mwe.com/info/practical_advice/

You can't make this up.

Hilarious. The partners hosting that seminar on 2/10 are income partners whose own jobs are probably going to be cut in the next round. They better listen to their own advice!

SV isnt a sinking ship. The ship sank. There is no succession plan. There are no associates. Corp? Lit? Non existent. IP? They have a couple of cases from clients that will never hire them again.

Where are the two third year partners in charge?

cuts in dc include corp, energy, trial

Just heard from a friend who was let go in November. Firm gave him another month to keep e-mail, etc. That seems decent to me.

The ship be sinking....

I hate the place. That said, office closures in places like Miami and perhaps an office or two in California seem possible, but I don't see the whole thing going down.

The bigger question is whether you will be in the "in crowd" and be saved. Most attorneys, partners included, cannot control their own fates at the firm because everything is so secretive and people are making decisions about other people's careers without letting those impacted know how they are perceived or what the firm has in store for them. If you have a very large book, you will be fine. If you work for such a person, you might be fine, but know that there is no guaranty that you will actually get that protection. People in high places have let go of some minions and those minions did not see it coming.

Does anyone have a copy of the firm policy memo that said if you had more than 2 kids your career at the firm would be impacted, including through a slower partner track?

Totally agreed with 194. MWE is terrible. The leadership are a bunch of morons... which isn't surprising as far as lawyers are concerned, I guess, but they really take the case for being complete monkeys. Although the firm sells itself as a meritocracy, succeeding and staying is a practice in sucking up or being the right partner's pet.

My friend who got let go, a FIRST YEAR after 5 months, billed more than most of my first year associate class. His performance was not an issue because his group loved him and still does. Why he got laid off is a mystery to many.

Law students: if you can help it, don't come to this place. They do fire people every year. That's a fact.

195, are you sure you have the full story? I don't mean to be harsh but the facts don't add up and it is often the case that the associate isn't telling the complete story. For example, have you gone in to ETE to check that the guy had the hours he said he did? Was it all pro bono? Did he even have a performance review? How do you know his group loved him? Do you know if he said something to someone outside his group that was inappropriate, like a client or practice group leader? Did he pass the bar? Is he padding his hours? Is his group super slow? Has his group suffered defections? Is he part of a group known not to keep associates fully busy like government affairs, trade, telecom, corp? This sucks, but there might be more of a reason than you think.

196 has no clue. I don't mean to be harsh but those were the dumbest questions ever. How about this question: was he laid off because the firm also laid off 148 other people that same day due to the firm's deteriorating fiancial status?

And why does MWE continue to allow attorneys to view other attorneys' hours on ETE? Attorneys spend far too much time reviewing others' hours and speculating about who is next to go.

197, so I take it that you can answer all my questions and none apply and that it was completely random that he was chosen instead of the attorneys that were not let go? He was chosen because he was a great attorney but there are so many other attorneys of equal caliber that he just drew a short straw?

195, what office are you in?

67 has it right.

Fair point, I withdraw my snark and really do feel bad for those going through this

look none of it matters. think about a single good management decision mwe has made this year? none. even how these layoffs were handled? for us in california we heard on ATL first. great job partner in charge.

can you name any successful intiatives? are the china offices sending over cross-border m&a, corporate due diligence or lucrative patent lit? no. does the health group get on big deals? no. the ny and london offices are failures.

seriously the management issue and the amount that all of those managers make from our backs... that is the issue that should be focused on. the glass ceiling, lack of an adequate promotion policy, a trial group where nobody but those in a little select group (since their noses are the most brown) get promoted...

layoffs fine. but when will management really do something? i guess they dont care since they are all old and all they do is complain about being managers. thanks management.

i hope you will all be my fake xmas card friends when i leave...

When HF steps down, will JS, PS or BB be any better?

all of them grew up in this toxic environment. better jump off the ship asap--perhaps you can throw a lifejacket to the firm with one of the third year partners in charge .....put those PhDs to work...

202 - you're absolutely right. Although all firms are in trouble, good leadership will save some, if not most, as well as their lawyers. MWE's leadership, however, is remarkably bad.

all I know is that the firm kept asking me to take on new matters even after I was let go! When I refused, the leadership strongly hinted that I better not burn any bridges cause "you never know. . .", and that I should be available during the transition month bla bla bla . . .

Please do tell, since when "transition" = "working for free even after you got chopped"? Any other MWE victims got a similar experience?

By the way, I was told that the leadership is monitoring this website . . . talk about petty! if they dare to do the deed, why are they afraid of being lambasted for their poor decisions? Have some balls!

206,

It depends on what you separation terms are. If you agreed to come in and work, then you might have to in order to get the three month severance. In addition, treat your clients well. If there are clients that depend on your expertise then do the work because it is good and right for the client. I know some who take the view that they will do that work without entering time so that the client gets what it needs but the firm is not unjustly enriched Others say this is stealing. You decide for yourself.

On the other hand, I think your sole job is to find a job. If they have work for you, politely tell them that you are interviewing and unavailable. They will get a clue eventually, although there are some pretty dense people at the firm.

As to the burning bridges comment, they have said this to people before. I think it is funny. They have already fired you. What more can they really do? It sounds like the person saying this to you thinks he is Tony Soprano. I would just smile and ignore them. If you feel the need to proceed, just make sure you are making a clear choice to burn a bridge. The legal community is small and people seem to have expected connections with each other and you might find yourself hating someone that your next employer or client loves. If you know that the person is a cheating, lying scumbag that you would never work with/for, then burn the bridge if it will make you feel better. However, the best revenge might be to go out and be successful. Then, when it is your time to hire a lawyer, savor the opportunity to hire another firm.

If the firm is monitoring this site, that is great. It might be the one and only place where you actually get their full and complete attention. God knows that telling them through normal channels like the associate forum or the exit questionnaire does not sink in. Just be truthful and straight with your opinion if you choose to express it. Odds are they will not sue you or take other action because testing the truth through a court would be really messy and would result in much more dirt coming out about the firm.

I am sorry you are going through this.

Has any 3L gotten a call telling tem that their MWE start date is delayed?

203, tough choice

JS -- smart but snobby, overly focused on pedigree, does not take the time to know people outside of lit
PS -- hot tempered, plays favorites, interesting approach to women, to old boy for people to want to follow him
BB -- loves being a lawyer, and not an administrator, too aloof to make a lot of different people want to follow him

195, I correct my post. I now better understand the number of first years let go and the over-hiring problem underlying some of the layoffs.

Thanks 207. Those comments were very helpful.

Where is the Daily Jounal reporter? I hope she is capturing all this and will out MWE for the fraud that it is - funny thing, nobody ever disputes the majority of this negative posts! Its because they are true...

Except the part about the good health and trial groups - they are only good for those at the top! Just ask those who were promoted in those groups - the process was so transparent and fair!!!!!

-I'm the new second year partner in charge, so take that third years!

I am curious to know how many associates that thought McDermott was the cat's meow when the vault ratings were posted in August still think the firm is all that. Funny how 5 months changes so much.

All of those associates got promoted

208 - not a phone call, no, but an email - yes. Though I haven't yet seen a start date actually set.

To 206. Monitoring this web site is just the beginning. They are actively monitoring email and internet use. Can phones be far behind?

Did someone find out the list of repeat clients with billings over $1 million?

In the SV office, there were surreptitious attorney layoffs before the "announced" RIF. Laid-off staff included a couple of secretaries, some paralegals, a records clerk, an HR admin, and a few others. Despite exalted six-figure PPPs, staff was given a lavish one week severance for each year with the firm. Impressive.

In the SV office, there were surreptitious attorney layoffs before the "announced" RIF. Laid-off staff included a couple of secretaries, some paralegals, a records clerk, an HR admin, and a few others. Despite exalted six-figure PPPs, staff was given a lavish one week severance for each year with the firm. Impressive.

Even more impressive is the SV office leadership. There has been so much written about OC and LA. Why has SV escaped?

I haven't seen when the new first year partner will be put in charge of the sinking ship. Oops its not sinking, the office and clients are growing, isn't that what SV said in the paper?

Even more impressive is the SV office leadership. There has been so much written about OC and LA. Why has SV escaped?

I haven't seen when the new first year partner will be put in charge of the sinking ship. Oops its not sinking, the office and clients are growing, isn't that what SV said in the paper?

What happened in today's meeting from HF- aka, Mr. Churchill? I'm sure management was transparent as can be...

Did he appoint a first year as managing partner?

He told us to stop making fun of him on ATL and made everyone a partner who could make a capital contribution to the firm.

What about bonuses?

Bonuses? Are you kidding me? The firm is going through tough times. Where are you? What are you doing to help us - are you marketing or doing something of value?

Get your ass out of your head and perhaps you can think like someone who makes a frickin 250K salary and just complains all day.

I know the economy is bad but we all need to bring in business - besides it helps when you interview - especially when they let all the income partners go.

I had to work with the two biggest assholes in the firm, who BTW got sanctioned and still are the leaders we have to follow - so it's fair to ask about bonuses.

Who are they?

I am truly fascinated by the amount of attention MWE gets on these posts. Why is that? It can't be that bad here, right? Its a great learning experience.

228 must be a first year at mwe

What are you going to learn? How to be an asshole? A few more years you will realize hard work doesn't matter, it's all about how well you kiss ass and who you know

Look -lets be honest. I work here and so do some other nimrods who can't get jobs elsewhere. So lets make it as "fun" as possible while we are here - and lets stop dissing the chairman, leaders, etc. It isn't a perfect firm, but its not that bad either.

227 - read all about it here.

www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424971192

rumor is another round of layoffs are planned for june or july -- those who dont keep their hours on target [2100 annualized] are the first out the door

230 - Can you name a biglaw firm that is worse?

Well frickin suck it up. MWE has it faults but its not that bad. Seriously, if you could frickin ge ta job elsewhere you would - we only have the leftovers nobody else wants...

234 - does that include you?

Whatever happened to GB?

232, regardless whether you keep your hours on target or not, it IS about how well you kiss ass and who you know cause I know someone who is on track of making 2100+ and still got shafted.

- not 229

What about DC trial? Does it even exist anymore?

I'm hopeful that the firm and comp committee will do its job and pay us income partners that second bonus -----

When is the next round of income partner cuts?

Has there been a round of income partner cuts? Are there any stealth income partner layoffs?

I'm an income partner and I got cut - wasn't stealth at all.

You probably deserved it - do you bill hours, kiss ass, brown nose, yell at people, and get billing credit you didn't deserve? Hope you pad hours and get sanctioned too.

Then you will get cut - and you deserve it among the other hundreds of income partners that will also get cut!!!!!

242 - which office and when?

Can someone give me the real lowdown on MWE? I've been offered a non equity position with the promise of promotion?

245 - Promises are empty. You won't get promoted unless you have a big book of business. Don't you think mwe tells all the lateral income partners they will be promoted?

Look at trial - only the brown nosers get promoted. Health? I'm glad JS will run the firm - and he will run it in the same way he runs the group - promote noone and extract all you can from income partners who get paid so little! Perfect model!

-Bitter and laid off income partner

Unless you are slated coming in, there are no guarantees for promotion. What group are you joining?

Should I even join? With all of these internal issues and all of the departures recently...

I'm sure MWE will survive - but its lost its luster, has no international practice and I don't want to work with the a**holes that work there and post on these blogs...

What happened with the sanctions cited above by 231?

www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424971192

Does this mean they can't practice law? I am a concerned 3rd year in JS' group waiting to make income partner - or get laid off whichever comes first.

Briefs were just filed in the Federal Circuit yesterday. They continue to practice law but don't disclosed that they have been sanctioned when submitting a pro hac vice so the deceit continues . . . if the Judges don't cares who appears before them, why should anyone else?

If you are coming in non-equity, I would make them promise in writing when they will make you equity. That promise cannot take any of the following forms:

- You will be considered in 2010
- You will be put up in 2010

It has to be you will be made a capital partner in 2010. They routinely do not make laterals equity without. It cannot be conditioned on the size of your book or anything like that. When they want to give this kind of offer, they do. Do not believe anyone when they tell you they never do this. Also don't believe anyone who tells you income partners are compensated fairly or that income partners are happy. It is a blatant lie. If they want you and contract to make you equity then you are fine. If not, go in knowing you will likely never make it. Also know that you will not be at the table treated like a partner. You will be a senior associate, pure and simple. You will not have any say in any firm management, you will not see the firm's economics, you will be a nobody.

Many income partners let go in Wash and NYC, including marquis practice groups.

DC Trial is spotty. There is some good attorneys, but it is a death trap if you are looking for a future. Leadership does not protect its own. The folks that get promoted are the folks that have support from people outside the trial group, like Ray Lupo used to do. If you come to trial, you better have school pedigree, federal clerkship and friends in high places because that is what it takes.

249, are you really saying that the people that post on this blog are a-holes?

Can't wait to read the briefs!

232, why would McDermott do the next round of layoffs this summer when the summer associates are at the firm? I expect the firm would hold off on round two until this fall. Have you heard anything about plans to withdraw offers or delay start dates for the '09 associates?

MWE partnership sounds really great. Boy do I feel inspired now to join such a wonderful enterprise!!

Go JS HF and BB - you guys are doing such a great job running this place!

Poor DC Trial. Those that get promoted have to lie. And the leadership knows this. But its just like IP. A total failure...

252- If you are so bitter why do you stay here? Its because you can't find a frickin job! Probably why they won't promote you as well!

254 - What did RL do?

I was at MWE for years; left for many reasons and do not experience now what I did there. I agree HF is unlike his predecessor and the economy has affected MWE. Some views follow:

Recruiters recruit attorneys, summer associates and staff. The department in the site where I was has grown and now includes attorneys. When attorneys left former firms and came to MWE, expensive lawsuits were a result. ARs are, after all, what it’s all about.

Attorney training is by "McDermott University." Outside training is discouraged. So, associates may be in webinars (if there's $ in the budget for the group). In-house training is done by partners. Outside training depends on $. The ability of younger attorneys to meet current or future clients is curtailed, monitored or discouraged. In the very least it is kept to a minimum. So, an associate’s name/credit going out on a firm newsletter is unusual. How can anyone bring in new business and make partner if one cannot network with industry CEOs, CFOs or other attorneys? Attorneys need to get out to do that with business cards but first years must wait to get those.

Pro bono efforts work against attorneys: Too many billables and there's no time for PB; too much PB and it looks bad on your eval; do way too many and you're out the door, even after being told you are great at doing PB work and get awards or accolades! You can't win.

Ethics violations (like affairs) are overcome by moving people around. It takes MWE forever to dismiss unethical attorneys (but staff are still assigned to them!), but if they produce billable clients who generate more work/matters, great. Routinely, ethics problems are ignored. There are examples of it on all levels. If staff catch on to it all, they are moved around or gone. A billable client is important since nonpaying ones are a problem. Charges against former partners made news before. (They forget: People take their cues from the top.) Do current clients know of this new round of layoffs, the third time since 2000? Department heads, practice group leaders and co-heads change often. Why? What about consistency? It’s not at MWE.

Staff eval forms are a convoluted, paper-intensive focus; 14 pages long and require self-evals. Staff are evaluated 1-3 times yearly by paper and in person. The entire merit/pay-for- performance/process/training mechanism is a/k/a ironically "A Community of Excellence." All staff must take hours of pro development (a 2-day class called “Star Achievement Training” or makes participants paint eggs and gives attendees plastic Slinkies, etc.) or computer-oriented classes whether they use or remember them or not. Did all those laid off staff break their eggs while painting them? Turnover on all levels is unreal and managers constantly note what is done wrong. Attorneys must note staff inconsistencies for performance evals. It all keeps HR very busy. Where before staff could have an unlimited # of attorneys eval them, no more. Were all staff layoffs based on the economy; fewer paying clients or $20,000,000 possible debt per a prior post or mismanagement? (Before there was an office in Russia -- since disbanded -- plus talk of opening an office in India?). How are office moves funded? All this stuff costs lots of $, people.

Women attorneys leave in droves or stay less than a year. Sometimes partners move from other offices to fill up space. Dozens and dozens of staff got fired over my time there. No one ever questions the recruiter’s abilities (HR and recruiters seldom get outside training), yet staff like me who left always found better jobs easily for more $ and real benefits. (MWE takes them away: no tuition reimbursement; fewer days of unused leave paid; less bonuses, etc.) Staff are petrified of HR. It is rumored viewing abovethelaw.com is being monitored. Why bother?

Like others there, I was sick a lot at MWE. There was so much stress in that cut-throat environment. I never knew when the “other shoe would drop;” what new problem must be solved; what would I be accused of tomorrow? Or would I be subpoenaed? (I changed groups to get away from screaming or unethical attorneys=and there were so, so many); what new situation I must face or new obstacles to overcome, all just to get the job done? The idea we were "all in this together;" working for clients was ignored. I’m amazed I lasted there as long as I did. MWE wanted you to do the work for the least amount of $ or lowest common denominator=attorney/ staff ratio. After always spending hours at doctors' offices for antibiotics; being blamed for everything that did not go right through no fault of my own; knowing it would only get worse, me and my 401(k) left to work elsewhere. Can you blame me? I ran from the lack of ethics by numerous attorneys and managers. A Law School Admission Forum rep told me once such courses are not mandatory in all law schools. Why not? They’re required for my degrees. I figured the managers forgot their ethics’ courses.

Years ago I loved working at MWE and telling people so. Now, thank goodness, I can refer to it as "my former firm."

Its amazing that MWE is even together - it has no culture, ideas or aspirations that bind it - a bunch of money grubbing hungry assholes who all deal with it just to make the next buck!

What an amazing place to work -certainly a workplace differentiator!

Long live the cooperative wonderful relationship at MWE. I wish I could be a partner here, but I haven't started my summer yet -once I finish the summer, I will get promoted to non equity!!!!

Whoa-$20M in debt? Seems kinda low to me for its disfunction.

262 has a point. There's no positive culture. If there is one at all, it is: cheap. It's an exhaustively unpleasant environment to come to each day.

Like 226, whom I probably know, I also have had the distinct pleasure (that's irony, folks) of working with...how did 226 put it?...oh yeah, the two biggest assholes at the firm. I got to see them in action many times, including the Denver debacle, and I have to say that at least TM is smart, personable and has courtroom skills (albeit a little like a bull in a china shop at times). The female half of the dynamic duo, VE, has no such redeeming qualities. Judges and juries universally dislike her, as well as all the people who have the misfortune of working with her. Oh, and the $4.3M sanction, from an up close perspective...totally justified and deserved.

It seems like the IP department at McDermott has imploded but how did it thrive for as long as it did?

It seems like the IP department at McDermott has imploded but with all these sanctions, how did it thrive for as long as it did?

Besides TM and VE, is there a much of a IP department left? Didn't most of DC IP lit leave a year ago?

Another round of layoffs has to be coming soon because there are still a few gay, minority and female associates left after the previous layoffs.

266 - best comment ever. I totally agree with you

I hope that everyone here will one day realize the strength of the MWE culture! Take your cues from the top and copy? if you didn't agree with leadership and management you would have left long ago.

What is the strength of the MWE culture? How to only get sanctioned every other year?

269 - Lupo is still there. Maybe he is still "taking care" of the trial group.

The DC IP practice left to join White & Case in late '08

he defections occurred when partners left for Orrick, OMM and Weil long ago. The fate of the group is still unclear

--MWE Insider

looks like we got a deep throat at mwe

In a firm full of a-holes, it is comical how so many agree that Terry and Vera are biggest of all. I have had the unfortunate experience of watching Terry’s cavalier leadership style drive the firm’s biggest cash cow into the ground. One would have to be deaf and dumb to send either of them on an IP pitch. Any GC worth his salt is going to research their “abuse of advocacy”… I mean body of work. I would rather send my IP work to a competitor than risk having their misconduct infect my client relationship.

-Part of the Brotherhood.

TM and VE have no repeat clients because they over staff the cases and bleed the client dry. They never stay in budget. That's not how you keep a client. No GC is going to hire them in this economy

278--Amen to that, brother!

--Another member of the Brotherhood

261 - Sounds like the LA office. If not, it's all one big happy family.

276 - LOL! so true.

What about the fact that there are no IP partners that could make it at a real tier 1 firm? Think about it - FM, AA, RL, etc.... Do they have clients that would rank them anywhere? Yes at a TTT firm like MWE! Go local Chicago firm!

-Long live "brother"hood

276-What does that mean? Should we all be looking elsewhere? Is moving into Heller's space our ultimate fate?

MWE is full of backstabbing and lying boobs. It's a terrible place to work.

What about the other IP partners, they have no work either. They aren't in the 10M range of real partners at real firms. They don't have their own clients and have to feed out of the same trough at TM and VE. What about ARA? Others? They are so low tier-- that is why they work at a TTT Chicago firm that can never go big time!


-I am in the know

What about the other IP partners, they have no work either. They aren't in the 10M range of real partners at real firms. They don't have their own clients and have to feed out of the same trough at TM and VE. What about ARA? Others? They are so low tier-- that is why they work at a TTT Chicago firm that can never go big time!

-I am in the know

What is the story on the patent groups on the West Coast? Aren't the prosecutors in Orange County and SV ok lawyers with big books? And what is the story on SD and TX? No one seems to know much about them--are they making it through the layoffs unscathed?

What about the other IP partners, they have no work either. They aren't in the 10M range of real partners at real firms. They don't have their own clients and have to feed out of the same trough at TM and VE. What about ARA? Others? They are so low tier-- that is why they work at a TTT Chicago firm that can never go big time!

-I am in the know

I am so thankful that I left MWE when I did. I was one of those female associates who got absolutely no support from any of the partners. The bias toward men was so obvious it was insulting, and they're not that nice to people of color either! God forbid you are a brown female -- you have no chance! Look and see how many black female capital partners there are...

Oh and I'm pretty sure that if you looked at the people who were laid off, the percentage of women to men would be sickening, and so would the percentage of minorities. I wouldn't be surprised if their home-base office has ZERO brown female attorneys after the severance packages run out.

The good ol' boys club needs to be disbanded!

289 - How can you say that? QH, the 3L who was promoted to partner in the patent prosecution group is a female who isn't even qualified in her field (no patent bar) and VE is a female who has been sanctioned but still holds leadership positions in the IP dept. If those two MWE attorneys could succeed with their credentials, how good were you not to have made it at MWE?

290-I didnt brown nose to the right people. Its not about merit at MWE, clearly

I too am thankful I left MWE when I did - it is so much better for women where I am now. However, I disagree with what has been said about TM and VE. In my opinion, they are both very good lawyers but horrible people be around.

How did MWE report higher than ever PPP?

293 - it's easy. Lay off 200 attorneys and staff, withhold equity partner pay for a significant period of time AHEM and play with numbers.

294-Are you in the know? THey told income partners we would get more money soon. Is that a pipedream? The same pipedream that says MWE is a good place to work?

Listen, how many times have you been promised something by MWE superiors that didn't come to fruition? I'd be more worried about your job than any extra money. Equity partners are having large chunks of their pay withheld -- do you really think giving you more money is a top priority? Just be glad you've got a job and keep trolling for any available work. Then get out when/if the economy turns around.

296-So why be an income partner at MWE? They can just cut me - like that? Even though "I'm a brother"?

296 nailed it. I have been given verbal assurances and promises by a member of the mgmt committee that my job is safe. But other, more truthful, individuals have me advised me that round two may hit my office hard. Whatever the case may be, I am getting out first chance I can - the only good thing is that my boxes will be already be packed and ready to go.

296 nailed it. I have been given verbal assurances and promises by a member of the mgmt committee that my job is safe. But other, more truthful, individuals have me advised me that round two may hit my office hard. Whatever the case may be, I am getting out first chance I can - the only good thing is that my boxes will be already be packed and ready to go.

MWE may survive this recession. It might not survive the recovery. Is anyone still here for a reason other than lack of other opportunities?

Of course they will survive - they lie, cheat, steal, sexually harass people, racially discriminate against people, fail to grow a business and develop the next generation and THE MANAGEMENT COMMITEE CONTINUE TO EARN A TON OF MONEY OFF OUR BACKS!!!

292- What are you smoking? VE a very good lawyer? Are you frickin' kidding?

Of course she is, her frikin sidekick. Is he a partner too?

294 is in the know and spot on. Just add stealth deequitizing and your done.

The firm pretended that the Feb. layoff was the first one. Not true. The stealth December layoffs had their last day today. A bunch of them were 2nd yr associates.

294 here again: 304 is right. Add stealth deequitizing. Also add income partner promotions only because the firm wanted the contributions so that it could throw more money down the drain.

298 - What office are you in?

McDermott's billing rates are off the charts. If you move to a reputable firm with a more flexible rate structure, you can compete.

I was a summer two years ago. I bought bs mgmt fed us at the summer associate retreat. Now that I'm here (not one person in my group still is they all left) its worse than I could ever have imagined. Will this blog help? No way jose. Top capital partners plan to leave soon....

309, in what groups will top partners leave? From what I have heard from recruiting, the firm has a ton of lateral resumes from other tanking firms. It seems like MWE might be viewed as a safety net firm by lawyers at other firms that had huge losses last year. My view is that partners lateraling TO the firm may find they hate the place, but it is better than unemployment and partners that are looking to leave could find themselves at firms that have their own financial problems. Stated more directly, it is currently very hard for a partner to tell which firm represents the greenest grass.

296, equity partners have always had their comp withheld. Partner draws are capped throughout the year to something like $35K/month and then you get distributions 2 or more times a year. Are you aware of something different happening?

When was the last time someone from OMM, Weil, Gibson, Davis Polk, or Skadden came to MWE? You would be lucky if the resumes were from Jacoby and Myers.

312, your point is well taken, especially for NYC and West Coast offices.

How is it that TM and VE's profiles with the california bar show no record of discipline yet?

Maybe because they have not been disciplined by the bar.

. . . yet

Give them leadership roles! GO MWE! Let them promote more QH's! Maybe someone from trial will get promoted, but you have to know whose butt to kiss!

311 - it is being withheld longer and longer. The firm is in essence borrowing from the equity partners and taking much longer to pay.

Hey, as a West Coast Income Partner, does this mean NO SECOND BONUS? ARE YOU SERIOUS? I'm glad that we continue to meet - all of the income partners to discuss how poor the management is. Sorry that nobody even cares.

Your second bonus will be surviving the third round of layoffs. No guarantees about the fourth, or the fifth . . .