TTTroutman

Fist?

So for the first time ever, you have a verified firm insider telling you that associate layoffs are certain in the near future, but you title this post "voluntary departure program."

What is the matter with you?

The firm statement says that the voluntary program is available to staff (only).

Things are bad here, too. Had to downsize to a 2500 square foot wife and VW.

Sure, I'd love to leave voluntarily, there are tons of other great jobs out there that I am too busy working to pursue.

They're taking out a policy on the firm's profits and client service level? Or, perhaps, they want to "ensure" that the firm remains profitable. Did Elie or the firm spokesman type up that statement?

7- If the "voluntary" severance is generous enough and you figure you're going to get canned anyway in a few weeks, I could see someone taking it.

Deadweight TTTroutman associates, you know who you are. Step up and volunteer to be fired- you owe it to the HARD WORKING associates at your firm.

Did Troutman already implement salary freezes?

Trout, Trout,
They're kicking you out,
Voluntary severance is the option they tout.
Come on,
The axe is falling on you,
So come on.

Epic reading comp fail by Elie.
The quoted portion says a voluntary severance is being offered to staff now, and there will be "involuntary layoffs of its staff and associates" in the near future.
HTH fatass

For those of you interested in the "generous severance," step right up! One chair, no waiting.

milbank promise

Troutman's "Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan" was only offered to staff. Attorneys will know next week from the Associate Review Committee if they are getting canned. Troutman's "generous" plan included:
Less than 5 years of service=one week pay for each full year of service
5-10 years- 4 weeks full, 4 weeks at 75%
10-15=6 weeks pay at 100%, 4 weeks pay ay 75%, 4 weeks at 50%, One single lump sum of $2K.
15-20 years 8 at 100%, 6 at 75%, 4 at 50% and 2 at 25% lump of $2.5K
and so on and so one.

The firm also will pay a percentage of Cobra depending on years of service.

If enough people dont volunteer, the spearations become involuntary

Am I misreading this?

4 years --> 4 weeks pay as severance
5 years --> 7 weeks pay as severance
9 years --> 7 weeks pay as severance

Hardly seems fair.

17-
You are close- 4 years of full service is 4 weeks at 100%

7 or 9 years is 4 weeks of full, and 4 weeks at 75%- a total of 8 weeks.

And this is all pretax.

For less than 5 years of service Troutman pays 65% of cost of participant's cobra payments for up to 9 months.

5-10 years= the firm pays 100% of participant's cobra payments for up to one month, then up to 8 months thereafter, the firm pays 65%. So, if you were there 5-10 years you get one month of free Cobra vs. a person there 4 years. Other than that, the beneifts are the same. yippie.

That's horrible severance, not sure its worse for younger people (really crap severance) or older people (what's the odds they get another job soon?)

Quick question, is the severance paid in a lump sum or drawn out? How crappy would it be to not be eligible for unemployment if your employer is paying 50% of your normal salary.

I guess I would have interpreted "4 weeks of full, and 4 weeks at 75%" as 7 weeks, not 8 (4 + (4 x .75)). But that's as much arithmetic as I'm inclined to do on a Friday evening.

In any case, my condolences go out to everyone at Troutman affected or about to be...

- 17

Vigntieme

Thanks 17/20. I guess were all a little to sad/pissed to do correct math- my bad. Either way- its terrible. And yes a bit unfair

19- Here's your answer:
Timing of payment of the incentive Payments: "The aggregate amount payable to a Participant under the plan sha;; be paid in semi-monthyl installments over a period designated by the Adminstrator, commencing as soon as practicable following the later of the Participants separation date...in no event will any of the portion of the incentive payements be paid later than March 2010."

the milbank promise has been broken!

I can't take this anymore! every day it's more bad news! there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

K&S has deferred until mid-January with 0 stipend.

That severance is for shit. But if the severance were actually generous (e.g. Latham's six months) it sounds like an ideal offer for people who know what they're doing come fall (I know multiple people who are sitting on clerkships and fellowships, anyway, for whom this'd be a pretty sweet windfall - and their departures would spare their firms from laying off associates with no other options/who want to be there.)

Remember the voluntary departure severance applies only to staff. The firm memo suggests there is no voluntary option for associates.

On another topic, what about more senior lawyers? An old friend of mine (with whom I've been out of touch for a couple years) is an income partner in a satellite office. Is s/he at risk?

Remember the voluntary departure severance applies only to staff. The firm memo suggests there will be no sweet windfall voluntary option for associates.

On another topic, what about more senior lawyers at Troutman? An old friend of mine (with whom I've been out of touch for a couple years) is a RE partner (income, I presume) in a satellite office. Is s/he at risk?

Sorry about the double post. Ignore 28.

My balls have a voluntary separation program.

Doesn't the stimulus bill require companies to pay 65% of Cobra payments for a certain number of months anyway? I think Roxana (or whatever, the laid off attorney writing on here) mentioned that recently.

If so, that's not really a special benefit for Troutman staff.

Good point, 32!

ATL really should re-title this post. It makes Troutman sound almost like it's trying to do people some kind of favor. They couldn't have bought that kind of positive spin!

Can none of you READ? The voluntary program is for staff only. As far as any associate that gets laid off - it's 3 mos severance - paid thru end of June.

And as for me, I'll take the managing partner of the firm telling us face to face of the news over some other firm (that shall remain unnamed) where they give no notice and promptly send security guards to escort you out anyday.

Below market severance. I wonder if Troutman will show it really sucks by giving associates equally crappy severance or by treating associates different than the staff on the issue of severance (which really sucks because the staff are paid shit to begin with and need the money at least as badly). Sorry Troutman associates

You are wrong about the severance package. It is as follows:

1. $100 (in cash) for every year of service.

2. Those with over 5 years of service get an extra $50 lump sum payment. Those with over 10 years of service get an extra $125 lump sum payment. All in cash.

3. 100 pounds of government cheese for every year of service.

4. Benefits--we don't need no stinkin' benefits!!

"Voluntary" departure is just a state of mind, and way for muckity mucks to alleviate their own guilt and self-realization of failure. Perhaps a Troutman fat cat got this idea from the good folks at Pillsbury.

Sorry Troutman associates, its just a matter of time . . .

This "voluntary" departure program isn't going to attract anyone to step up. Generous? Are you kidding me? That's pretty standard even if you get FIRED for poor performance/politics at my firm. Give staff 3 months pay for 7 years served or less and 6 months pay for more than 7 years served, then it may look remotely attractive for volunteers. Otherwise, nice try Trout but you're going to get .

The new recovery act requires employers to subsidize the initial expense of covering 65 percent of the premium for 9 months- so Troutman isnt offering SHIT! Plus, the government will later reimburse the company through a reduced payroll tax.
Nice try Troutman

Guys in my high school used to offer voluntary layoffs all the time. Twas no big deal.

Guys in my high school used to offer voluntary layoffs all the time. Twas no big deal.

Seriously, is anyone in doubt any more that the future of big law isn't just bleak, but completely erased? Sure, you go to work in a nice office in a big shiny skyscraper, but in order to have biglaw you need big clients. Banks are shells of their former self, automakers can't unload their product and are asking for a handout, investment firms are freezing redemptions lest they fail, real estate is going vacant. No rational client wants to pay twice for what they need.

The law firms will break up into small specialty firms and mid-size firm, which all may cooperate for a bigger client.

No matter where you sit, it's time to get out.

I agree with 43, we're in a new economy, lawyers are only as successful as their client can pay them--and many clients can't pay. The days of mahogany furniture and high-priced art offices may be over.

43 and 44. Thanks for the sage advice based I'm sure on years of experience in the industry and in management of a law firm. Incredibly, some people on this site try to make sweeping conclusions about the future of biglaw while in law school or as young associates. People like you who have really seen the ups and downs of the business, who have close relationships with decision makers at major clients, your the people who can teach the rest of us what the future holds. Thank you.

so basically this whole line of comments has been horribly confused because of Elie's retarded mistake. Elie, don't you EVER dare say that people make fun of you in these comments because you are black. I, who am writing this, am black. I have nothing but love for black people. People make fun of you because you are lazy, incompetent, and don't respect your readers.

And...you are fat.

46-
While you may correctly assess Elie's writing- his facts are mostly correct. Troutman held 2 meetings on Friday. One at 2 for staff, one at 3 for associates. Both groups were told that layoffs will begin- only staff was offered the voluntary separation "incentives." Associates will find out this week who gexactly ets shit canned.

Are associates freaking out? Why not just tell them who rather than making them agonize over the weekend?

It does seem rather sadistic.

45, 43 here. I am not a law student. I am an of counsel with enough of a book of business to keep several associates busy at the same time. My book is hard won. I started in the legal department of major IT companies before it was even IT and everyone just referred to these as technology companies. This was probably before you were born. There were a very few players and billing was at premium; think, large IT companies serving large clients. Seem familiar?

The recession in the late 70's opened a window for some of the small insignificant IT companies and the rollout of the desktop PC in the 80's changed the landscape. Some of the big players hang on this day to provide services for mainframes and enterprise solutions.

My legal department was gutted as my employer lost 1/3 of the business in 3 years. I was lucky to move to a competitor, but the cycle just repeated. A few years later I had survived cost reductions and layoffs, before moving to one of the niche players. I understood then, no matter how hard you wish, no matter how much better a product, no matter what advantages the big service providers have, they are forever stuck with fixed costs that require them to chase big contracts to keep a sizeable portion of their people busy.

The smaller guy can take a proprtionately smaller contract, join with another provider, and temporarily scale up. They can become a niche player and convince the client to break the large contract into a smaller segment because they can deliver something targeted.

Next time, watch the reaction when you bring in a small matter. One of the associates with whom I work, recently brought in an representation matter in an arbitration where the fees were to be capped at $40,000 (quite reasonable amount given the issues). He got a pat on the head. Even with a second round of layoffs in the firm, a first representation for a new client for $40,000 was treated like peanuts.

How many multi-million dollar litigations are out there when clients are reducing costs.

50--

I agree with you. The private practice of law in large law firms is an especially shitty job. The business model needs an overhaul in the worst way possible; but, like in so many other areas of life, law firms are (i) slow to change, (ii) run by folks who are not the best managers in the world (to put it mildly) and (iii) generally capitalized (or not) in a way that makes them incredibly unstable as business organizations facing a down economic climate (see Heller, Thelen, etc.). Large firms will continue to blame associates for the downturn, but it is the business model that's out of whack.

Smaller and mid-size firms are more likely (not exclusively) the way that things are likely to play out in the future. There will still be some very large players, but it's the 300-800 (ballpark numbers) lawyer firms that are going to struggle to survive in this market.

51,

I agree with your assessment that 300-800 firms are in trouble. I would say that even firms 150+ may have trouble if they are overweighted in some areas. Consider a 80+ person (55+ attorney) litigation department in a 150 attorney firm. That's a lot of mouths to feed. Having a lot of small matters means having to devote undue time to docketing, supervising various Jr attorneys on matters where the Sr partner may not know the facts. The economy of scale becomes a millstone. No wonder big firms jettison small matters for big cases, but those are not there anymore. It's time to rethink what is happening.

In some practice areas, national boutiques will dominate. In others, regional firms or groups of firms.

signed 43 & 50.

I love trout.

51--Great points. But you failed to mention the often open warfare between equity partners (and rising nonequity partners) over origination of clients/matters and compensation. Of course, I have personally observed such issues in much smaller firms. The way most firms are designed is that most of the compensation will go to a select few rainmakers, who often fight with each other. Not good for the firm, not good for the nonequity partners, of counsel attorneys, associates and staff.

Announcing on a Friday afternoon that layoffs are coming next week is cruel and unusual punishment. As if associates aren't fearful enough already.....How productive does managment think associates can been this week with the fear of the axe falling at any given moment hanging over their head?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429116078

As a partner at K&L Gates, Fred Ufkes said he was required to get firm leadership approval for any reduction in billing rates of more than 10 percent. He began to realize last year that the policy was making it impossible to adjust rates to the Los Angeles market in which he was performing toxic tort defense work. While the firm was pulling in such work at lower rates in Pittsburgh and Dallas, the higher rates it wanted to charge in Los Angeles were pricing him out of the market, he said.

56--

I am sure you're already aware of this, but he's not the only one in that boat. Many partners in various regional markets across the country are in that exact same position. They have no way of competing for local work because their marching orders from central command are to charge "X" for their services (where "X" is way above the local market) or be shown the door.

That's why the trend will continue towards folks striking out on their own in such markets to compete more effectively for local work.

What people, especially many (although not all) associates, need to realize is the fact that the services provided by many of the big firms in the country are little more than commodity work. Now that corporate clients (i) have better pricing information, (ii) are even more sensitive to costs than they have ever been before, and (iii) are disappearing at an alarming rate, the market for such services is going to experience extraordinary downward pressure on price/costs. It's as simple as that.

What does this mean for associates at those firms? Going forward, simply doing good work at your firm is likely no longer going to be enough to crack into tthe partnership. You're going to have to demonstrate that you can generate business. The rub is that it is extraordinarily difficult to generate business with the label "associate," "senior associate" or "counsel." And, the only folks who may be willing to give you work (local clients) cannot afford to pay what the big firms want to charge. That's another reason why more small firms are likely to start up.

57, I hear you. Bill 2000 hrs, attend to miscellaneous non-billable matters, attend useless firm-required meetings, get CLE's in, get in some "voluntary" pro-bono, do marketing on behalf of the partners, and then develop your own book of business sounds like a winner. When do I get to sleep?

58--

57 and 51 here. I hear you. I was not advocating that folks necessarily go after a brass ring that is increasingly more difficult to attain (if it exists at all). I think you're absolutely right for pointing out all of the things that associates are expected to do in addition to meeting a minimum billable requirement (whether it's 2000, 1900 or 2100). If you add in the marketing load, in addition to all of the activities you mentioned. you're easily working 70-80 hour weeks for the better part of at least a decade. And, there's no guarantee that you'll succeed. All of this is a long way of saying that I agree with you. Chasing partnership at a big law firm looks increasingly like a fool's errand.

57 & 51

59, there are plenty of practice areas that biglaw is so uncompetitive due to high billing rates that it is pathetic.

What 57 writes is true. ("Going forward, simply doing good work at your firm is likely no longer going to be enough to crack into tthe partnership. You're going to have to demonstrate that you can generate business.")

But it's also 20 year old news.

61--

I am just trying to help. 20 years is a bit much, anyway. Try the last 5-10. Thanks for playing.

57 & 51

Troutman has made it clear that anyone who takes the "severance package" (which is one of the worst I've seen to date) will not be eligible to apply for unemployment benefits. What great people these are.

So, is anyone taking the voluntary package yet?

You are so right #63

This piece of trash they propose is a "generous" offer? How about showing everyone the release agreement they refer to, and whether unemployment benefits will be available to voluntary resignees - since they are not being let go for "cause" in Virginia, isn't unemployment compensation available?

2 follow-up Q&A meetings were held to address questions staff had re: the Separation agreement. When asked about unemployment the Head of the benefits department told staff to contact their state office. Basically she's being an evasive bitch and Troutman wants to punt on questions about unemployment.

Any word on what is happening at Troutman?

Did EVERYONE take the voluntary departure option?

Very few Troutman staff took the deal. Since the meeting- TS fired about 25 associates. Last Thursday and Friday thier Atlanta staff was cut and today a few of their other offices lost staff.

Well kiddies - the lastest on Troutman Sanders "package deal" - what a crock. They promised all these things and didn't carry through. Forgot to tell those taking the package what their official last day was or that they could apply for unemployment based on that official last day, so the severed employee missed out on about $1600; then COBRA should have covered them for 30 days (at least) free of charge, but HQ Atlanta "didn't get the paperwork" - AMAZING since the severed employees had copies of their signed documents ... don't trust Troutman Sanders - PERIOD.