Dewey LeSecond

Kudos!

Bwahahahahaha! About time partners felt the pinch. The schadenfreude is awesome.

The article doesn't say that any Dewey partners are "making less money than first year associates." Their draw is less, but they still get their share of profits at the end of the year. Their share is smaller than it used to be, but unless it's like only $30k, they are still making more than first years.

Q: can a partner lateral to another firm as a senior associate? Has this ever happened?

This gives me a new found respect for Dewey!
But it also suggests the beginning of some major restructuring of how law firms operate- whatever that means.
I look forward to the comments filled with speculation about how this will or will not play out across the board.

This would absolutely never happen in Dallas.

3500 sq ft and a wife, bitches!

This is a surprising development considering the Dow is up for the 5th day in a row, signaling the end of the recession.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/careercenter/lawArticleCareerCenter.jsp?id=1202429061819

" At the same time, firm leaders should reassure remaining workers that layoffs don't mean the ship is sinking."

The ship be sinking.

Your reporting is kind of bad. It's not that 60% of partners are taking a pay cut, but that some partners are only getting 60% of what they expected.

Dallas? Is that show still on? Plus, I thought it was about oil money, not BigLaw. Did they ever figure out who shot J.R.?

The "ship be sinking" guy deserves an award. First Elie starts quoting him then Law.com

If this becomes widespread, it means that you will all have to continue to claw, scratch, fight, and backstab for the rest of your lives. Making partner means nothing more than making more money. You will eat what you kill, all the while watching your back to ensure that one of your "partners" isn't out to kill you. Partnership. What partnership? Everyone who looks at this with glee, should project themselves 15-20 years into the future. Be careful what you wish for.

5, you are wrong. A partner only gets a share of profits if he or she is an equity partner. If Dewey is reducing the draws of non-equity partners to $10k a month, then that partner makes less than a first year. And, even if the partner is equity, if the firm is reducing his or her draw to a measly $10K a month, the firm has probably also cut that partners share of the profits substantially as well. I would guess that having your draw reduced to 10K a month is Dewey's gentle way of telling the partners "you're fired"!
And, note that that the firm is saying that they are not enforcing departure dates, but that could change at any moment if these losers try to hang on too long.

Agree with 14. This isn't good news for anybody.

Not that there is much lateralling going on right now, but if I were a law firm considering hiring a partner from Dewey now, I would definitely ask the candidate if he was one of the jerks that got thier compensation cut at Dewey. Why would any other firm want to hire Dewey's garbage? You really have to view every Dewey partner resume that is on the market now with heavy suspicion.

Obviously, the term "partner" means nothing at Dewey.

Disagree. It's good news for associates who no longer have to bill their lives away to support underperforming partners.

ANXIETIES RISE

COMPENSATION FALLS

DEWEY PARTNERS REMAIN despite obvious attempts to push them out of the nest

It used to be that everyone hated partners except partners. Now it appears that partners hate each other, too. That is not a goal worth attaining.

This will become widespread, but my asslobster is fully ready to claw back for the rest of his life.

Boo. Hoo. $10K a month? I know that's gross, not net, but figure out where it puts them (many of us?) relative to most of America much less the world. Top 5%?

16 -- disagree. If anything, this is excellent news for John McCain.

19--You will still have to bill your lives away--even if you make partner--what a hellish way to live.

wrong 19 - these "partners" will soon be joining the ranks of associates, pushing down compensation levels. Think about how seriously f-ed up the market is for partners (likely non-equity at a large NY firm) to be sticking around despite compensation in the low six figures.

Newly minted lawyers are going to have a tough time making even 100k a year from now.

25 - True, but at least the profits of my labor won't go toward an unproductive ass-clown's beach house. Rather, they will go toward a productive ass-clown's beach house.

If it is so easy for partners to wield the ax on each other, imagine how much easier it is to wield in on a associate. No one is safe--ever.

Ft Worth > Dallas

4000 sq ft and a Cadillac.

14, 16 - take off your rose-colored glasses and recognize that partnership, (both now and in the future) requires clawing, scratching, and watching your back for the rest of your lives. Do you think $1M++ per year comes easily?

Partnership is synonymous with making more $$ - otherwise, why bother? What's good about this move is that now, non-producers on all levels will be held accountable.

Do not assume that all partners reap copious benefits from associate billings. Associate billings over and above what they cost may, for many if not most partners, only offset their own overhead. In other words, partner compensation for many roughly equates their billables.

So where does all the associate money go then? Ah, now that is a topic for another thread, I think.

Partnerhship. What partnership? If this becomes widespread, big law is going to become more vicious and hellish than it already is.

First, I eat the extremities, then I feast on the corpus. Yum. Feed me partners.

Everything is fine here at Skadden. The rest of you are simply idiots.

6 - a partner moving to another firm as something other than a partner would probably be "of counsel" to the new firm. It's done to save face.

15, Dewey is a one-tier partnership.

You think big law looks bad now. Just watch what happens when partners start sacrificing each other. Get out while you still have a soul.

You think big law looks bad now. Just watch what happens when partners start sacrificing each other. Get out while you still have a soul.

everyone who says that mystal can do better with his reporting (ie distinguishing between a monthly draw and actual total compensation for the year) is clearly racist.

*high 5s affirmative action*

everyone who says that mystal can do better with his reporting (ie distinguishing between a monthly draw and actual total compensation for the year) is clearly racist.

*high 5s affirmative action*

everyone who says that mystal can do better with his reporting (ie distinguishing between a monthly draw and actual total compensation for the year) is clearly racist.

*high 5s affirmative action*

everyone who says that mystal can do better with his reporting (ie distinguishing between a monthly draw and actual total compensation for the year) is clearly racist.

*high 5s affirmative action*

Haven't heard anything about Proskauer layoffs that were supposed to take place last Friday. Any updates?

15 months <==== That should be bolded in the article. A fifth of all slacking DL partners ALREADY had their pay reduced over a year ago and the firm is still doing shitty? And the firm is a year behind in paying a bunch of NON-SLACKER partners a portion of their $$? Don't you think the non-slackers have been making "arrangements". I would if my paycheck was a year late. DL better start paying the non-slackers before it becomes midlaw or littlelaw.

This is good news. Associates and Staff have borne the brunt of this downturn alone for far too long. If your firm can fire a first year for lack of work, then your firm can fire a partner for failing to bring in said work. And in any event we all know that most "partners" are really just senior associates.

Firms need to give the boot to certain managing partners who ran their firms into the ground.

Come to me, I will slake your pain, you needn't worry any more about billable hours and asslobsters, I will eat it all. Feed the maw! Feed the Carcass of Law!

Ok, even if Dewey does not have a non-equity tier, it certainly has a tier of purportedly equity partners whose share of the equity is so small as to be essentially non-equity, 36. And regardless of the partnership structure, Dewey has still cut some partner's draw to $10K/ month. Do you think that Dewey, in a fit of generousity, left those same equity partners share of the profits untouched? Of course not, they are trying to get those losers to leave. Those partners' shares of the profits have been slashed too, or the reduction in compensation would not make sense. (Who wouldn't hang on for $5 a year as long as you kept getting a large enough share of the profits?) I would guess that the profit shares for these deadweight partners have been eliminated or trimmed to nearly nothing, too.

10, I love the conclusion drawn. Lol.

Partners having their draws reduced to a level less than first-year associates?

Simply AWESOME!!!!

I learned the hard way the repeatedly Googling yourself for a day does not make you prestigious.

28 - um ... i think we've been seeing how easy its been to "wield" on associates for the last few months now.

A carcass doesn't eat; change your avatar for your schtick to work.

"I would guess that having your draw reduced to 10K a month is Dewey's gentle way of telling the partners "you're fired"!"

This. It's basically a severance package.

Dewey has opened up the gates of hell........

55 comments and no Nervous 1L? No Ship Be Sinkin'? No Mora? No 80's Guy?

My Monday morning is incomplete.

Bingo! #54

I am not the carcass, I am that which will create the carcass of law, I am death and the carrion is my symbol, that which defines me. Come to me! Feel my embrace! I will dance with you in your dreams and the blood of the slaughtered will be our lubricant.

If you want tenure, go into academia.

I'm nervous. Some carcass thing is trying to eat me.

You're weird, 58, and you write like a high school lit-mag goth chick.

Did someone say "severance?"

You people need to calm the shit down. Partnerships, unlike associateships, differ pretty widely from firm to firm. Just because Dewey does something does *not* mean anyone else will follow suit.

Also, I think it is about time partners become accountable for the performance of their firms. However, I think it's overboard to give them less base than any associate. Just take away their bonuses.

I banged a goth chick in the ass once in college. It was worth it.

The ship be sinking...

lit mag goth chicks are kinky.

"These sources assert that a third and smaller group of star rainmakers and executive committee members have special compensation "guarantees," and, as such, have not been affected by the reductions."

Thak you self for taking care of self.

True, 66, but not worth it unless you like The Cure and clove cigarettes.

Guys in my high school used to de-equitize partners all the time...twas no big deal

64 - who was she? Your Mom? (You deserved that for such a ridiculous and unnecessary comment.)

It was worth it, 68. She was all kinds of freaky. Turned into a complete bitch though when afterward I ignored her for the remaining 2 yrs or so.

63=Surely you mean "Everyone EXCEPT DL ASSOCIATES calm the fuck down." If DL already cut dead weight partners down as far as they can and are now behind paying partners that aren't dead weight, 65 not be just a funny guy.

Bout time! As a former associate, I remember all too well how smart associates did most of the work for dumber partners who then received all the credit when things went well but made sure to share the blame when things didn't. Less BS is good!

Mmmmmm.....clove cigarettes, The Cure...kinkiness....ahhhhh

Hello, Paul. Allow me to introduce myself...

Yes, 70, it was my mom.

Carcass of Law = pwned. Nicely done, 61. That was a stupid shtick anyway.

Dear Partners,

HAPPY DRAW REDUCTION (aka FIRING) DAY!

This is the day that you realize your firm, the organization that you devoted your life to, does not want you any more. You will be shamed in eyes of your colleagues. No recruiter will call for your resume. You will be, after your trophy wife divorces you, poor. Very Poor.

However, you can overcome this setback. There is no shame in working as a part-time mediator, or doing residential real estate closings on the side (once the real estate market picks up). Maybe you can try to get an expert witness gig a few times a year, if you have any speciality.

For the men among you, this means that, after the divorce, you will lose your wife, family, house, and reputation. For the women among you, it is too late to try to be a wife and mother now, as you are too old. You are basically in the same situation as the men.

Sincerely,

Your partners who did this to you.

Say what you want about DL. Management there has a clue about the most effective way to cut non productive costs.

It used to be that Dewey only ate its young. Now they are eating each other. Cannibalism reigns at Dewey LeBouef!

80 is right - maybe it isn't grapes that Dealbreaker chick is eating. Maybe it's the balls of slacker DL partners.

Dealbreaker chick = Lat
Grapes = rocky mountain oysters

Hmmm....

80% of the partners are still making the same.

If a partner isn't producing enough business to at least cover what he's paid, it seems common sense that he should (a) be fired, or (b) have his compensation cut.

I dunno, but to me this seems like a smart management decision to cut dead weight more than anything else. Nice to see partners taking a hit for once instead of associates.

Paul Hastings should cut its useless and very large Business Development and Attorney Development Group! These useless departments should be eliminated!

78,

You can't call an expert witness to testify as to the substance of local law... at least you can't in my jurisdiction, I'd be surprised if it's different in NY.

15, the term "draw" implies that the person has an equity stake (and that their compensation is dependent on the results of the firm). Non-equity partners don't takes draws because there's nothing to draw from. They just get paid a salary in the same way as associates or paralegals do.

Paul Hastings monogrammed wire hanger group is a strong as ever.

The hardcore backstabbing lateral strategy has worked so well at other places, like Cadwalader. Keep up the great work, visionaries.

The fact that many of these partners have had their compensation slashed for such a long period of time and haven't left the firm strongly indicates that they have no business and are basically glorified associates. They may be considered equity partners technically, but probably have almost all of their compensation fixed as if they were 10th year associates. In other words, they are the most expensive mouths to feed and give little back. Sounds like many will be eliminated soon.

This latest chapter to the Biglaw meltdown should be more of a wake up to associates than the associate massacres of Feb and Mar.

By popular mythology and law school vapors, a lawyer would ride the tiger because getting to be partner was akin to getting tenure at a university. But better: you got a cut of profits, either your own or everyone's, which went ever higher due to helium-filled billing rates and massive leverage. Business trickled down from rainmakers, and eventually you picked up personal clients from retiring partners. Who knew that there was no guarantee of anything--- that they would stab you in the back and throw you overboard when things got rough?

And it must be hard to find a job to support an erstwihile seven-figure lifestyle outside of BigLaw. Only the top few corporate exectuives in a Fortune 500 make that kind of coin and the GC certainly doesn't. A midlevel can "retool" but what does a partner with no book in a dead practice do? It must be personally devastating.

the recession is over. this is GDII (the great depression II). start hoarding your bread.

23, nope, $120k/year isn't top 5%. It's probably top 10% though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Also, note that in 1997, 1st year associates were paid approximately the 80th percentile salary. Now they are paid more than the 95th percentile salary.

Unclear what to make of this article. Dewey has a tone of non-quity partners and they clearly have been having some serious cash flow issues (see, e.g, WSJ article). Although I'm sure lots of other partners will be fired I think this is one firm trying to keep from sinking.

86: The distinction you are making has not been used for at least 15 years, probably more. At most firms, the pay given to non-equity partners is typically referred to as a "draw," even if it is a fixed amount not dependent on the profits of the firm. The "draw" paid to non-equity partners is also paid once a month, unlike salary payments to associates. Thus, its called a "draw" whether it is paid to equity or non-equity partners. In this particular case, Dewey apparently only has equity partners, but it would be called the same thing even if they had a non-equity tier.

15

85,

I was just trying to give these loser partners some hope, so they didn't all jump off a bridge tonight, and you had to go ahead and ruin it. The blood of these no account partners is on your hands now.

78

85 & 78: They can't be called as experts on substantive law. They can be called as experts in the practice of law, and offer testimony in legal malpractice/competency of defense cases. And I'm sure there's a huge market for that.

Guests do not pwn avatars, oh insignificant 77. Hold tightly to your scrawny posterior, for the booty is the juciest part of the carcass and the maw of death will soon close upon you with the blind vapidity of all great predators. Or like a high-school goth chick. Your choice.

DEWEY is full of crap denying the fixed deals for legacy Dewey partners. There were many deals given out when Dewey sold out.

For those of you saying DL will eventually fire these partners, the release of this news, long AFTER it happened, likely constitutes this firing. These people will have a much harder time going in to work after today, now that it's all public....

Very funny, 78 / 95. Why are you so threatened by people using this site to express their feelings and offer support to colleagues?

i dont think that this will lead to mass confusion in the partner ranks at firms if it is not already there. the draw of a partner is based upon the money the partner can bring in (yes, simplified, but stay with me here). at our firm, there are some partners that are rainmakers, some are managers and some are workers (the usual finders, minders and grinders). to have a well functioning system, you really need all three. if someone is bringing in the rain and is really good at doing it, that person needs to be doing that. same with the others. but, the partnership agreement needs to have compensation set for the various types of billings. i am not going to get into the intracacies of how this is done, and can agree that it is not done very well.

but, in some firms, there are partners that dont do crap. they dont bring in any business, dont manage any clients for other partners and dont bill (or if they do, almost all of their time is cut because their billing rate is too high for the work). those are the partners whose compensation should be adjusted.

i like the way it is done at our firm. the partnership recognizes that different people bring different things to the table. you cant have a room full of rainmakers, as their personalities typically dont go well with the mundane day to day managment of a client. and, you obviously cannot have all grinders, as they need a source of business. you need a balance, and when our associates come up for partnership, if the partnership cannot benefit from what they bring, they dont make partner, except rainmakers. you can always hire more people!

it looks like dewey is taking care of business, but i dont think it will change any other firm into being scavengers at the partnership level where they werent before.

99 is dead on the money. Dewey gave these partners the hint that they needed to find other work, expecting them to take the hint and get out. They didn't, and just kept sucking (less) money out of Dewey. The remaining partners are sick of paying this welfare, hence the announcement. They are also likely riding these 'partners' pretty hard when they actually come into to the offce. I am sure they are hounded nearly daily about resigning.

99, 102 -
Just to be clear, Dewey didn't "annouce" or "release" this news -- they were responding to a request for comment after a few of these partners went whining to the American Lawyer. These matters are typically handled quietly and with respect for the dignity of the affected partners.

That's BS, 103. IF Dewey wanted to treat all of these 66 partners with "dignity" they would have stated "no comment" when the American Lawyer called. Make no mistake, this is a public firing of 66 partners.

No one will look at a resume from a Dewey partner now, unless they have confirmed portable business, and even then they will be subject to heavy due diligence.

Are they nuts? I hope this firm burns in hell.

104 for the win.

This is an environment of welcoming, and you should just get the hell outta here.

83---If a partner isn't producing enough business to at least cover what he's paid, it seems common sense that he should (a) be fired, or (b) have his compensation cut.

I dunno, but to me this seems like a smart management decision to cut dead weight more than anything else. Nice to see partners taking a hit for once instead of associates'

If this is true, then the firms who laid off associates who weren't billing enough to cover their inflated salaries were entirely justified for doing so. In fact, it is such a good business decision everyone should be applauding them for doing so. Geez, it would be nice if people would look at the whole picture and not just the little area that they occupy.

90--This is the most intelligent post on this thread. Obviously made by someone who has actually spent a few years working in big law as opposed to just blogging about it.

104--Right on. They should have maintained professionalism with a "no comment."

The majority of you seem to think that it is entirely appropriate to can an under-performing partner and state that it is for cause. However, you have no trouble blasting firms for termnating associates for the same reason, because, as we all know, if an associate is terminated now it has to be due to the economy and at no fault of his or her own.

The D&L partners should be thrilled with their management. They have repositioned the firm during the past few years to have elite practices in several areas essentially new to the firm and have managed to attract some of the best laterals in the country. They now have an internationally renowned tax practice, one of the top five securities practices, one of the best insolvency groups,an active and strong m&a practice, an outstanding energy practice and a tremendous international network. Their insurance/reinsurance practice continues to dominate the field. No major players have left there for any other firm, there have been no extraordinary capital calls and they have continued to attract some of the best laterals in the country. They have a non-lock step comp system and it makes sense that it readjusts periodically and slightly more than a year after a major merger. I wonder how many partners had their comp go up. Sounds as if they may be doing something right.

112, I am sure some partners had their comp go up. If so, they should save that extra money, rather than spend it. Because once those partners' business dries up, Dewey will reduce their comp to nothing and publiclly embarass them like they did to these 66 partners.

Dewey "kick them when they are down" Lebouef doesn't know the meaning of partnership.

96,

Why WOULDN'T there be a huge market for expert testimony in legal maplractice/competency of defense cases?

112, I am sure some partners had their comp go up. If so, they should save that extra money, rather than spend it. Because once those partners' business dries up, Dewey will reduce their comp to nothing and publiclly embarass them like they did to these 66 partners.

Dewey "kick them when they are down" Lebouef doesn't know the meaning of partnership.

114, 96 here - it's kind of a niche market. It's not like medical malpractice or product liability. Most people don't turn around and sue their lawyers when they lose cases. So there isn't that large a market for legal experts of that sort, especially when their resume includes "kicked to curb by DL for underperformance."

As a former DL associate, I never thought of the firm as a true partnership because the DL partners don't vote on ANYTHING. I don't know how Dewey operated before the merger, but at least LeBoeuf, and the merged firm - did not let partners make any decisions. The only vote in the history of the "partnership" was for the (failed) merger. All business decisions are handled by DiCarmine and his posse. So this isn't a case of partners kicking out partners, but rather, DiCarmine kicking out partners. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to be a partner in a firm that doesn't give you in any say in how the firm is run.

I feel terrible for the affected partners. I was laid off from DL for "performance reasons", so I know how it feels to work so hard for a place that just chews you up and spits you out. I can't even imagine how it must feel to be chewed up and spit out after decades of hard work. As hard as it is to deal with something like this, all affected partners should feel some comfort in the fact that they are no longer working for such a heinous place that does not care about a single person working there.

As a former DL associate, I never thought of the firm as a true partnership because the DL partners don't vote on ANYTHING. I don't know how Dewey operated before the merger, but at least LeBoeuf, and the merged firm - did not let partners make any decisions. The only vote in the history of the "partnership" was for the (failed) merger. All business decisions are handled by DiCarmine and his posse. So this isn't a case of partners kicking out partners, but rather, DiCarmine kicking out partners. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to be a partner in a firm that doesn't give you in any say in how the firm is run.

I feel terrible for the affected partners. I was laid off from DL for "performance reasons", so I know how it feels to work so hard for a place that just chews you up and spits you out. I can't even imagine how it must feel to be chewed up and spit out after decades of hard work. As hard as it is to deal with something like this, all affected partners should feel some comfort in the fact that they are no longer working for such a heinous place that does not care about a single person working there.

118, I was at a firm that gave the partners a say in how the firm was run for every single matter. It made decisions at a glacial pace, and there was a ton of backstabbing in order for a certain group of partners to get their way. Last I heard, those guys are in the middle of firing a bunch of partners as well. My point is, whether you have a strong executive committee-type firm or a very democratic one, no partner cares about unproductive partners or associates once their compensation starts dropping. If I had been billing 400 hours a year as a partner for the past few years, I'd sure as hell be thankful that my partners carried my dead weight for so long.

112=proof positive that Steve DiCarmine has learned how to type.

A firm where partners shoot each other in the face is a firm for me... To whom do I submit my resume?

112: "I wonder how many partners had their comp go up."

Apparently not too many, or not as "up" as they wanted `cause morale is low and shopping isn't just window.

Question-DL stopped monthly partner distributions in Aug. 2007. See http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=135451 Has it started paying them again (when?) and did partners eventually recoup amounts unpaid during the stoppage?

Oops meant Aug. 2008, not 2007. Let's do this over.

Question-DL stopped monthly partner distributions in Aug. 2008. See http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=135451 Has it started paying them again (when?) and did partners eventually recoup amounts unpaid during the stoppage?

97 = EPIC FAIL.

Let me see if I understand the gripes I keep seeing here: a law firm cuts the compensation of nonproductive attorneys and that is BAD?

Get real here: the way life is supposed to work is that if one has a good year, one makes more money. When one has a bad year, one makes less money.

Every firm that is honest about it will admit that compensation every year goes up for some “partners” and down for others in good times and in bad, and that when the firm as a whole has a bad year, even people who personally had good years in terms of productivity wind up making less money. (For the record, I am an equity shareholder at a 400+ lawyer firm who personally had a kick ass year and made less money - and who then successfully lobbied against both associate layoffs and against associate pay freezes.)

There are no guarantees ANYWHERE in a capitalist system that where profits are down, someone automatically is going to make the same money this year that he/she made the year before.

If you think otherwise, take some time to talk to businesses which not only are laying people off but also are cutting the salaries and bonuses of the management who remain.

101 "but, in some firms, there are partners that dont do crap. they dont bring in any business, dont manage any clients for other partners and dont bill (or if they do, almost all of their time is cut because their billing rate is too high for the work). those are the partners whose compensation should be adjusted"

you just defined a managing partner!

126---"For the record, I am an equity shareholder at a 400+ lawyer firm who personally had a kick ass year and made less money - and who then successfully lobbied against both associate layoffs and against associate pay freezes.)"

Now aren't you just about the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"actually 3L with no gfriend, no job prospects, living in mom and dad's basement

111--"The majority of you seem to think that it is entirely appropriate to can an under-performing partner and state that it is for cause. However, you have no trouble blasting firms for termnating associates for the same reason, because, as we all know, if an associate is terminated now it has to be due to the economy and at no fault of his or her own."

Bravo. Someone who actually calls you all on your bull$hit!

Most of you have no clue about what really is happening. Want to know the truth--here it is: Dewey did not just cut the compensation of 66 partners. What it really did was reduce the compensation of more than 300 partners to 60% or more of the amount that they were told to expect at the beginning of the year. AmLaw and others have it all wrong, and their misstatements have been exacerbated by outright lies by the firm's management. Shame on those as*hol*s. In fact, the reference to 66 partners is to those partners whose monthly draw was cut to $10,000 and whose remaining comp would be based on how much business they bring in and how hard they work (which is in fact how most firms determine compensation of partners at the end of the day). Nothing wrong with that, but rather than owning up to that, the firm chose to try to hide its poor performance and act like everything is copasetic. Indeed, those partners--comprising about 15% of the firm's partners--were effectively told to hit the road. Sucks for them for sure. However, the comp of nearly all of the other equity partners--except the big-time rainmakers--was cut to 60% of expected compensation as a result of a terrible year for the firm, awful collections from clients and the huge expense involved with merging two huge firms. Those 300 partners whose comp was cut are all in "good stead" and are set to return to their normal levels of compensation, barring another terrible year (which may happen, but if it does, it is likely to affect most so-called "top-tier" firms generally). Shame that lazy reporters who did not bother to get back-up got it wrong in the first place, and that scu*bags at the firm chose to respond to blatantly inaccurate reporting by blaming 66 partners instead of just telling the truth--that the firm got hit hard by the global financial crisis and had to cut the compensation of about 80% of all partners. THAT IS THE TRUTH.

130--ATL doesn't care about the truth.

Would love to see ATL or another source investigate the statements in 130.

I would like to see people capitalize letters at the start of their sentences. Not bothering to push the shift key, 101 and others, is simple arrogance. Just like not handwriting in a manner that people can read.

"Just like not handwriting in a manner that people can read." I'm not sure where to begin with this sentence. Also, if you think people typing in all lowercase is arrogance, you're probably way too sensitive.

112, assume you work for DL's PR agency. No one else would write such ridiculous crap.

130, I think you may be right on the money. DL (and LL, which had the same management group) has always juggled the revenue six ways from Sunday to make their rankings look good -- talk to *any* vendor who tried to get paid in the second half of the year. It would make perfect sense for them to cut everyone's draw, salaries etc. massively and then apply the numbers to revenue if they are having a bad year. And we all know mergers cost money -- lots of money. Add in the financial crisis and you have a recipe for financial disaster.

Does there remain any doubt that Dewey is sinking? It trimmed over 30% of its associates (went from 1500 to just over 1000 lawyer firm) and drastically reduced partner comp. They are so cheap that they are still cutting associates (who made the bonus) - ahead of the bonus paydate of end of March. I bet the morale is way below sea level there! Getta hell out while you still can - your DL credentials next year might be as good as your morale now!

As a former Dewey associate, allow me to point out an elephant in the room - the merger (i.e. acquisition by LeBoeuf) did no good for Dewey - it might have no longer been a top tier firm but it was well respected (internally and from the outside). Along comes Steve DiCarmine (aka post 112) and all of a sudden 300+ associates are bad performers and now 66 partners. One thing if the firm had to draw blood to survive, then other is HOW you do it. Now Dewey is looked down upon as the firm of zero integrity full of bad associates and underperforming partners - the reputation to carry DL well into the bright future. Truly unfortunate for Dewey to have falled thus far down.

As a former Dewey associate, allow me to point out an elephant in the room - the merger (i.e. acquisition by LeBoeuf) did no good for Dewey - it might have no longer been a top tier firm but it was well respected (internally and from the outside). Along comes Steve DiCarmine (aka post 112) and all of a sudden 300+ associates are bad performers and now 66 partners. One thing if the firm had to draw blood to survive, then other is HOW you do it. Now Dewey is looked down upon as the firm of zero integrity full of bad associates and underperforming partners - the reputation to carry DL well into the bright future. Truly unfortunate for Dewey to have fallen thus far down.

What exactly is the role of an "executive director" in a law firm? Is such a person a partner? If not, is he a even a lawyer? Is this model common in Amlaw 100 firms?

Also, anyone who went to lawschool with Steve DiCarmine (if he's a lawyer), please fill us in on his school, class year and what he was like as a law student..

While other firms start trends like forced public interest work for associates, Dewey starts trends like the one discussed here. Douchebag firm.

Inquiring minds would like to know the race and sexual orientation of the laid off attorneys from Dewey (the 11 or 12 in structured finance). A little birdie just pointed out that they were all people of color or identified as gay. The others were women. Interesting. Would be even more interesting to know the race and sexual orientation of those let go in stealth firings.

The ship be sinking. How far can it go? Sky's the limit.

130, you wrote: "the firm chose to respond to blatantly inaccurate reporting by blaming 66 partners instead of just telling the truth--that the firm got hit hard by the global financial crisis and had to cut the compensation of about 80% of all partners. THAT IS THE TRUTH."

The firm DID NOT get hit by the crisis. They've only laid off 12 associates.

143, the firm did NOT only lay off 12 associates. They only publicly announced that they laid off 12. They have actually let go HUNDREDS of associates over the past year - but they've been doing it quietly, in small waves, so that no one notices, and they've been saying it's for performance reasons when that is NOT the case. I bet they made the announcement of the 12 layoffs public so that the press/public really believed that the layoffs were only limited to 12 people. The firm is managed by deceitful snakes.

Dear 141, if you think for a minute that DL is biased against gays, then you are out of your mind and have no idea who is running that firm. Just as a hypothetical, does someone who moves in with a guy, then back to his wife count as gay?

Who is this DiCarmine guy? Does he manage the firm?

Comment removed by moderator.

141:
2 of 11 officialy laid-off structured finance were gay (I do not believe there are any more LGBT left in that dept). Recent layoffs had a very disproportionate number of women and at least 2 more male gay associates. Following the merger, am not sure there are are any mid/senior level (3-8 yrs) LGBT associates even left (from both Dewey & LeBoeuf sides). Job well done, Steves!

interestingly, all 4 gays in ny tax/erisa are gone as well since the merger

Comment removed by moderator.

The Dewey side of DL has never been "minority friendly" - the numbers and past actions speak for themselves. As to whether the are targeting minorites for termination, who knows, but as an outsider looking in, it is interesting that someone has raised that point. By the way, the DL PR machine is hard at work on this board.

The Dewey side of DL has never been "minority friendly" - the numbers and past actions speak for themselves. As to whether the are targeting minorites for termination, who knows, but as an outsider looking in, it is interesting that someone has raised that point. By the way, the DL PR machine is hard at work on this board.

Whether they are targeting minorities or not, the fact remains minorities are disproportionately affected by the layoffs (the 12 in Structured). Many other Dewey lawyers have been laid off. I would be interested in knowing the race/gender/sexual orientation breakdown of the unfortunate bunch.

The white man's no longer the smartest person at the table, but he is definitely the safest at the table.

the ship be sinking.

153 - DL also hates old people.