first

Apparently DLA Piper exists in some sort of bizarro world where during recessions the Dow skyrockets 1000 points in under 3 weeks. Fortunately for those of us here on planet earth, such an increase in the Dow clearly indicates that the recession is long over and the bull market has begun.

Don't these guys read the newspapers? The bank rescue plan is announced; the Dow is up; the recession is over.

DLA is where some of the structured finance douchenozzles from Thelen are hiding. Have a great day messrs. steiner and goldstein and weinberg. hopefully this is only the beginning of karma for ya's all.

@ 2 = racist Cardozo student

they are way big to fall

4, just give up. 3 has a much better shtick.

I don't see how this relates to the layoffs at Cahill.

If you want to dance, you have to pay the Piper.

The economic downturn was not "full blown" until the fourth quarter of 2008?! Law.com, very funny. In any event, how does three months of a "full blown" downturn not affect a firm's results for the year in which those months occured?

When will Chris Aalbersberg and Pål E. Aasvestad get the boot? Do layoffs only happen in US offices?

The ship be sinking...

I was raised to gnaw the eyelids off of anyone who uses the word shtick.

CHOMPERS

@8 - completely disagree with you. Four's comments are much better and more diversified than three's.

Viva la revolucion!

I hate you #4.

#11

The roof, the roof....

At every firm now, partners with actual business (the people who pay the bills) are threatening to leave if they are not given a bigger piece of the pie. IF DLA Piper had not done this, DLA could have put itself in further jeopardy. This is just another example of the significant and ongoing contraction of the legal industry. Many lawyers have and will contine to be laid off, and for the lawyers that remain, pay for associates and most partners will continue to fall to allow the firm to meet the demands of the few partners who currently have paying business.

Note that the pay reductions were not confined to non-equity partners. This exposes the myth of "equity" partnership. Because a partner cannot contractually bind a client to use that partner on future matters, a partner can never have true equity in the future income flows from the client. The best a partner can hope for is that the client will continue to hire him or her, and that firm management will continue to give the "equity" partner a temporary license to share in the profits of the law firm, which license can be revoked once that partner no longer has the same voume of business. A lot of pain was inflicted on those purportedly "equity" partners who just cannot bring in business in this economy.

The RoTTT intensifies.

@19=UPennState/Philly 1L.

2 Pipers 1 Cup

DLA Piper is crumbling -- they merged with anyone they could find (just for the sake of "global expansion") (Piper Rudnick, Piper Marbury, Piper Marbury Grey Cary, DLA Piper Rudnick, and a host of small places around the world) -- in the process, however, the quality of the firm's lawyers greatly suffered. There is no way they can now get clients to continue to pay their over-inflated rates (and egos). Then they lost Amy Schulman (their #1 rain-maker). Then they cancelled holiday parties. Then they froze salaries. Then -- in order to raise $$ -- they made all income partners cough up $150,000 and just buy their way into all equity partner status. Then they had massive layoffs. Now they are cutting partner salaries. This ship is sinking indeed. Be afraid anyone at DLA and anyone considering going to DLA.

23: you've posted on this topic before (easy to recognize a law student or a disgruntled DLA interviewee), and again, you are an asshat. DLA's No. 1 rainmaker went in-house, and now sends them a lot of work, from what I hear. If you think that partner pay reductions are a sign of firms "crumbling," there are a lot of firms that won't be here next year. My firm had partner pay reductions as well, but we were lucky enough not to have it publicized. If you think your firm is immune to this, you are an idiot.

The Dow Is Up Guy is far and away the best commenter ever on this site. There, I said it.

Hold up 24, I don't know 23's story, but 23 has some valid points. DLA did grow too fast, and will likely have to shrink or break up. And Pfizer is sending alot of work DLA's way, but not enough to pay all the partners what they had been making. Agreed that other firms may be in trouble too, but the harm at DLA will be greater as it grew much faster than those other firms, so now it will shrink faster, too.

Not 23.

Hold up 24, I don't know 23's story, but 23 has some valid points. DLA did grow too fast, and will likely have to shrink or break up. And Pfizer is sending alot of work DLA's way, but not enough to pay all the partners what they had been making. Agreed that other firms may be in trouble too, but the harm at DLA will be greater as it grew much faster than those other firms, so now it will shrink faster, too.

Not 23.

Leaving DLA Piper was the best move I ever made. Now I am sitting pretty with 3500 sq ft and a wife.

Suck my Lexis, bitches!

I think it makes good business sense to cut the pay of deadbeat partners with no book of business. These partners drag firms down. You should not be permitted to coast -- essentially taking money from other partners' pockets -- just because you made partner. Bring in business, or get out.

How awesome are the European offices doing?

@25=The Dow is up Guy.

The lesson is that if you want job security or income stability as an attorney in biglaw, you must have a big and portable book of business.

Why does DLA have 3 offices in San Diego?

33 - because we're the most awesome law firm in San Diego.

Partners are quickly finding themselves fungible in today's economy. As a fungible associate who got laid off, I can say, Hip Hip Hooray! to this development. I hope DLA goes bankrupt and the spillover effects impact other BigLaw firms, including my firm, in a negative and unfortunate manner.

Is it safer to be in-house or at a firm right now?

DLA is cheap and weak. They cancelled their holiday parties; they made all income partners pay to become an equity partner; they froze salaries; they conducted huge layoffs; they gave crap severance (less than 1 month in the UK); they are taking money back from all parterns. DLA is a laughing stock. There are so many better firms that charge the same or cheaper rates. How do they have any clients?! Oh, wait, see above -- I guess they don't.

This comment is not exactly on point but what the heck.

I'm putting a shout out to my fellow layoff-ees - when you were axed, did your firm pay you for accrued but unused sick days? Mine didn't even though I asked - twice. No explanation but they did pay me for accrued and unused vacation. My reading of California law is sick pay, like vacation pay, is a form of deferred compensation that an employer is required to pay upon dismissal.

Has anyone come up against this issue? Am I missing something here? I need the severance so I'm not going to raise it with my former firm until my last paycheck clears. And for the most part, I'm okay with the layoff - wasn't really working out for me there anyway - but I have 32 days accrued and that is another month's salary. I'm not rich enough to kiss off $13K.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated

No. 4 is gay...totally gay.

37 -- don't all firms make you pay in capital to become an equity partner? I think that is standard.

More like TTTLA Piper

"The firm ended 2008 with zero debt and will end 2009 with zero debt, said O'Malley."

This is a meaningless and potentially misleading comment. A firm in decline with weak management (incapable of giving the general partnership bad news) often borrows from next year to bridge the gap between the past year's budget and the true, disappointing financial results. A firm on a calendar year basis (like DLA) makes year-end distributions to partners on or about January 14 of the next year, just before tax day. Such a firm could end 2008 without debt, but then borrow from its line of credit on January 14, 2009 to fund 2008's shortfall to budget. This practice tends to snowball from year-to-year in a firm in decline (example: failed, bankrupt Chicago firm that expanded too fast, Keck Mahin & Cate). DLA's November 2008 cash call to income parnters could be reflection of too large a snowball that the firm could no longer manage with its credit line.

@39=The Dow is Up Guy. Lame ... totally lame.

Can we please have a firm death watch, complete with ranked risk factors (i.e. no bonuses < frozen salaries < associate layoffs < compelled partner loans < income partner salary reductions < equity partner draw reductions < partner defections < WARN ACT notices < dissolution < bankruptcy)

If you think that partner pay reductions are a sign of firms "crumbling," there are a lot of firms that won't be here next year.
__________________________________________

Yes, partner pay reductions are a sign of a firm "crumbling," and there are a lot of firms that won't be here next year. Do you have to be a psychic or rocket scientist to figure that out?

9: Where is the reference to Cahill? Meltzer (Global Finance) made a lateral jump to DLA from Cahill (bad choice?), but I'm not sure of any other significant connection.

38: My firm did pony up the extra bucks (and I didn't think I had any days accrued, having been there for just under a year with 1 vacation and some necessary sick leave taken). No complaints here, though.

40 -- 37 here -- many firms might require a person to pay in capital to become an equity partner -- but not every firm decides that becuase they need money, they will just do away with income partners and make them all give the firm money to just "become" an equity partner -- also, not every firm cancelled their holiday parties; froze salaries; conducted huge layoffs; they gave crap severance (less than 1 month in the UK); and taking money back from all parterns. Those qualities belong to DLA alone.

Elie:

Now that layoffs seem largely over can you start a thread on 2009 bonuses? My guess is that it will make more sense to do them by market.

Thanks

Elie:

Now that layoffs seem largely over can you start a thread on 2009 bonuses? My guess is that it will make more sense to do them by market.

Thanks

Elie:

Now that layoffs seem largely over can you start a thread on 2009 bonuses? My guess is that it will make more sense to do them by market.

Thanks

49-51:

I can't imagine they'd be lower than 2007 except without the extra component. Cravath got nailed rather hard last year low balling everyone, so expect firms not to want to disappoint associates and protect against attrition.

49-51:

I can't imagine they'd be lower than 2007 except without the extra component. Cravath got nailed rather hard last year low balling everyone, so expect firms not to want to disappoint associates and protect against attrition.

49-51:

I can't imagine they'd be lower than 2007 except without the extra component. Cravath got nailed rather hard last year low balling everyone, so expect firms not to want to disappoint associates and protect against attrition.

Novemebr 2008--

(DLA) NEP to EP: "Sir, $150,000 is a lot of money to someone who only makes $300,000 per year."

EP to NEP: "Don't worry son, based on historical results we expect the lowest tier of our all-equity parntership to earn $350,000 per year, so your increase in income will pay for your capital contribution within 5 years."

March 2009--

EP to former NEP--"Sorry, son, based on the unexpected and unpredictable economic decline in the last quarter of 2008, equity partners at your lowest level will only earn $250,000 in 2009--if we make budget."

I for one, oppose violence and do not advocate killing partners who strung 1st years along for over a year just to axe them after several months.

However, someone posted the comment below in the weekend thread, and I think he or she raises some interesting points. The topic is vigilante justice towards partners at the mass layoffs firms. Discuss.

"113 et seq. - I sure hope so. I, for one, would like to come right out and advocate violence against the partners who fired first years so that they could keep their 4th homes.

Our society really needs some good old fashioned vigilantism to keep those on the top tier of the income spectrum in line. Since it has now become de rigueur for people in positions of wealth and power in our society to abuse it and steal even more, and the government, rather than stopping these people, even a little, encourages it because those are the same people who fund campaigns (see, e.g., appt. of Thomas Donilon as Deputy National Security Adviser notwithstanding having led the attempt to cover up large scale Fannie Mae accounting fraud), one of the few things that might help is if some of the responsible people are slaughtered in their homes and offices by the people they've hurt. The Wall St. executives collecting seven and eight figure bonuses from taxpayer money after running their own companies and our entire economy into the ground should be murdered. They deserve no less. The rich partners rescinding offers they made to graduating law students, having people give up other opportunities which have now passed - murdered. No one is going to stop them from abusing their power unless YOU DO. In the words of an inspired ATL poet, Kill The Partners."

I agree with 52-53. No chance at the "special" part but the general bonus should be in the same neighborhood as 2007. I'm at a V5 and our litigation and bankruptcy departments are going gang busters.

DLA seems massive but they are really a bunch of small offices which makes their operating costs huge. I worked opposite one of their paralegals on a doc production. We were worried at first. Thinking they could out manpower us but she was a lone paralegal with the help of a project assistant on a huge case. She said every office has a librarian, library assistant, an HR person and an HR assistant, an admin head, facilities head, diversity manager, and she helped her boss on some tribute event thing and dealt with six marketing people to get it done. They have huge operating costs - that is why they must have high fees. Not to mention the rent they pay on all their locations. They need someone to come in and revamp the whole thing. Also - we were able to settle the case in our favor - I think they were worn out. Their lead partner left in the middle of it and I suspect too they could not keep pace with our class action technology.

47 - thanks. I'm assuming as much but was/is it a California firm.

They should just stick to making airplanes.

November 2008--

Equity Partner to Non-equity partner: "Great news son, we're becoming a one-tier partnership and you are invited to join for a mere $150,000 capital contribution!"

NEP to EP: "But sir, $150,000 is a lot of money to someone who only makes $300,000 per year."

EP to NEP: "Not to worry, son, based on historical performance, we expect EPs at the lowest tier of the point chart to make $350,000 per year, so your capital contribution will pay for itself in 5 years."

March 2009--

EP to former NEP: "Son, due to the unpredictable horrible economy in the fourth quarter of 2008, your tier of the point chart will only pay $250,000 in 2009--if we make budget. So get back to work."

That is sick. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. How could anyone think that resorting to violence would cause anything aside from chaos. These people do need to pay, but not with their lives. Reposting that is irresponsible and disgusting.

Well, it's definitely better to take a pay-cut than to be laid off. Unemployment compensation will be no where near what they're making now. DirtyLAWndry.com

Remove comment 56. It is completely inappropriate and should not receive a forum here. Suggesting killing large numbers of people over money, merely because you think that you should have more of it than you do or think that you were entitled to financial stability and have discovered that the world is more unpredictable than you hoped, is crazy. It also presumes that some individual actor could have prevented all of this or that the person intended the current situation to occur. Again, crazy. And I say this as someone who personally has been significantly impacted by the wave of law firm layoffs. Get some perspective and try to shake off the sense of entitlement. We're hardly the first generation to suffer through challenging economic times.

58 - interesting! that may explain some of the sloppy work they do - if they don't really have manpower to execute big litigation in the smaller offices. I thought most everything was handled out of Chicago but when I looked at the website I was surprised.

62, spare me your moralizing. First of all, people are thinking abou this not because they saw it on a message board, but because they've been laid off as first years in a terrible economy after their firm strung them along for over a year.

Secondly, instead of bitching, offer a solution. How can we keep these greedy assfuck partners from fucking us without violence? Instead of trying to silence those with different view, persuade them. Me and whoever posted this comment are patiently waiting your persuasion.

Thank you.

62,

You're entirely right, but unfortunately, you're wasting your breath with most of the people who comment on this site.

DLA seems to have a little office in every city - I hear the new Houston office is really small but to make ends meet they also sell fishing tackle and fresh bait.

I hear the Ghana and Zambia offices are very busy.

First, as is customary, the definitions.

1) A zombie partner is an equity partner who, if he appeared on the firm's doorstep today asking to be made an equity partner and to be compensated as he is currently compensated, would be told "thanks, but no thanks".

Note: An exception is made of course for partners whose financial rewards were not received in the year in which they were earned but rather were spread over a period of a few years as some firms use rolling averages to smooth out what otherwise would be unsettling income swings.

2...

In 2007, the firm had more than $2.1 billion in revenue, making it one of the highest grossing law firms in the world.

Eat it, b*tches.

ATL should remove comments 56 and 66 and the very, very similar threatening comments posted over the weekend. 56/66, you are one deranged (and persistent) puppy...

71 demonstrates why lawyers should not run a business -- fail and knows nothing about economics -- "highest grossing law firm in the world" means absolutely nothing, as gross revenue does not take into consideration expenses (i.e., you can gross $2.1 billion, but if you have $2.2 billion in expenses, you lose). DLA, which merged with every chop shop in the country (and the world), is like the Enrons of old -- you can talk all day about your revenue -- but if you don't make a profit, you fail as an entity. Hence, you have to try everything you can to save money -- freeze slaries, do mass layoffs, give crap severance, etc., etc., etc.

Buchanan Ingersoll's rvenue has dropped significantly as well, but I doubt ATL will report on that because, well, no one cares:

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/03/buchanan-ingersoll-financials.html

73--The managing partners at DLA loved to tout the growth in the firm's year-on-year gross revenues in the endless "look what an incredible management job we've done" puff pieces. As if expanding gross revenues by rolling up mediocre real estate practices was an amazing achievement. Per your point, that statistic was as meaningless in those press pieces as in the nervous, recently-fleeced, former NEP's "eat it" comment.

56 and 66--
Partner Emeritus would whup that ass, then tap it for good measure. Eat that, bitc&e$.

can someone pls report 56 to the proper authorities?

thanks, in advance

Of course, DLA's 2008 net profit after taxes was up compared to 2007, not just revenue, making the prior comments on revenue interesting if not entirely irrelevant. DLA's size, while perhaps costly (which I'm sure the layoffs are addressing), has the benefit of diversification. In my view it is firms like Jones Day and DLA that will weather the depression better than the more presitigious capital market dependent practices

Of course, DLA's 2008 net profit after taxes was up compared to 2007, not just revenue, making the prior comments on revenue interesting if not entirely irrelevant. DLA's size, while perhaps costly (which I'm sure the layoffs are addressing), has the benefit of diversification. In my view it is firms like Jones Day and DLA that will weather the depression better than the capital market dependent "prestige" firms based in New York. I would add firms with a good DC presence as well, given all the money that cesspool is siphoning out of productive parts of this country.

I'm outraged, 56. Cutting and pasting someone else's words into a new thread with no concern whatsoever for the author's feelings. If that guy had wanted his words in this thread, he probably would have copied them here himself, don't you think?

You even left off his disclaimer. What is this site coming to? You owe us all an apology.

78/79--Thanks for the company line on profits. We'll take that to the bank, as this firm never misreports its results.

38: O'Smellveny paid for vacation, personal and floating holidays but not sick days.

DLA is sinking. A firm can't merge with everyone in sight, have its overhead skyrocket, have the quality of its lawyers suffer tremendously, and try and charge the same rates to clients (in any economy, let alone in today's world). Bye bye DLA.

spare us the bs about "profits" 78/79: just tells us what the balances on the firm's lines were at 1/16/09 and how much a/p increased from y/e07 to y/e08. All of you newly minted DLA "equity" partners should be asking the same questions.

spare us the bs about "profits" 78/79: just tells us what the balances on the firm's lines were at 1/16/09 and how much a/p increased from y/e07 to y/e08. All of you newly minted DLA "equity" partners should be asking the same questions.

spare us the bs about "profits" 78/79: just tells us what the balances on the firm's lines were at 1/16/09 and how much a/p increased from y/e07 to y/e08. All of you newly minted DLA "equity" partners should be asking the same questions.

spare us the bs about "profits" 78/79: just tells us what the balances on the firm's lines were at 1/16/09 and how much a/p increased from y/e07 to y/e08. All of you newly minted DLA "equity" partners should be asking the same questions.

spare us the bs about "profits" 78/79: just tells us what the balances on the firm's lines were at 1/16/09 and how much a/p increased from y/e07 to y/e08. All of you newly minted DLA "equity" partners should be asking the same questions.

spare us the bs about "profits" 78/79: just tells us what the balances on the firm's lines were at 1/16/09 and how much a/p increased from y/e07 to y/e08. All of you newly minted DLA "equity" partners should be asking the same questions.

84-89 REALLY wants the answer to this. Please respond stat Frankenlee...ooops, I mean 78/79

60 - Nice.