Firsty

"next phase of their career" = unemployment line.

Oh yeah...First!

That sucks guys, sorry to hear it.

Elie - "The stipend is undisclosed." Can't you read? The memo says there is a $5000 monthly stipend and subsidized health care for those who are deferred.

5 - He's referring to the public interest stipend for those who choose to defer a whole year.

Would your rather be a 3L going to Mayer Brown or get hit by a greyhound bus?

Damn!!!

The ship be sinking...

5. Well, as I read the memo, it says that the $5K is for people pushed back to Jan. This nebulous, one year off thing (to say nothing about the "alternatives to full time work schedules) are far from clear.

But, I've asked for further clarification so hopefully we'll know more soon.
--Elie

If this means lower bills for me, great. Otherwise I'm not really concerned with your problems.

i have to say:
5K a month to do nothing until january is looking better than getting NOTHING to do nothing until november, which is when i am supposed to start work.

Isn't this place ripe for implosion? I thought the Refco issues and expensive expansion made it ripe for being on ATL's firm deathwatch.

It's got some great, well-credential attorneys. Then again, so did Heller.

40 + 90 = 135?

First Elie dispenses with the rules of grammar and spelling, and now decides to throw mathematics out the window as well.

90 + 40 = 130...is this how they bill too?

10, It is lawfirm SOP to freeze assoc. salaries while still raising their rates. You will take the same bath you always take.

I've heard rumblings of staff layoffs/salary cuts at Hogan & Hartson in DC. Do some investigation!

what about clerks?

HEY ATL, THANKS FOR ALL THAT 160K BULLSHIT THAT REDUCED VOLUNTARY BIGLAW ATTRITION, THUS FORCING LAYOFFS. THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL. I HOPE YOU GOT A LOT OF AD REVENUE FROM DESTROYING PEOPLE'S LIVES.

"Postponement of the start date for most new first-year associates to January 19, 2010,
with those affected receiving a $5,000 monthly stipend and subsidized medical benefits
during their deferral period"

This says nothing about a year-long deferral. Those pushed back January 19, 2010 will be getting $5,000 per month. That's it guy.

14: I think we are to assume that 5 people laid off were extremely fat and therefore were actually counted as 2 people.

45 Lawyers + 90 Staff = 135

Not 40 Lawyers Elie. (Apparently Math is not important at Harvard)

can someone explain what the f staff means?

It's 45 Lawyers, so the 135 is correct. From someone who be there.

Mayer Brown-Eye now has a black-eye.

Are there any litigation associates being laid off from these firms? We could use some.

I am writing to apply for a proofreader position at ATL...

OK . . . $5K per month starting when? Does January count as a month in which you get a stipend? That's gravy.

23 - Quit messing around on the internet, or it will be 46.

Mayer Brown partner

REPORT ON GIBSON START DATES --- DO YOU GUYS READ COMMENTS??????

Use the $5K to buy yourself an interview suit.

who could use a litigation associate? I'm highly qualified and am willing to consider almost anything.

31 -

Please post a photo and recent blood test results.

I agree with all-caps-18. atl was solely responsible for firms raising salaries.

also, you're right, it was the bump in pay by $15k a year that made associates decide to stay put in their firm, because to that point they had been leaving solely due to the horrible pay.

The incoming-associate deferral seems increasingly to be just an easy way for firms to save money and to bulk up hours for attorneys with spots at the firm. The firms who first started doing it might have needed to, but nowadays it seems other firms are just using the market as cover. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the Vault list is deferring incoming associates, by the time this is all over.

What the hell is going on over at Paul Hastings?

30, you could use $500 of it. Jos. Bank and Brooks Bros. have been taking it in the rear. Something about all the bankers losing their jobs.

the dow is at 8000, hello?

Get out the whetstone.

Hey buddy. No, I don't need to stay too long. One, two days top. I'm sure by then The Dow Jones Is Up Guy will have called me and told me that MB is rehiring me. So, how about a little Xbox tonight?

What "severe and prolonged downturn in the global economy" are they talking about? I seem to recall something about a downward blip in the economy in the past but right now the Dow is soaring ever upwards and shows no signs of stopping. These layoffs may have been justified a few months ago make but they make no sense in the current economic climate. Very foolish.

Stop reporting on staff. Only lawyers matter.

But the headline numbers are so much more sensational if you count staff!

Agreed, 41

With all due respect to The Dow Is Up Guy, I do seriously feel that we are starting to come out of the woods, at least on the high end of corporate. Debt issues have been surprisingly robust this quarter, and the GP group at our firm is starting to see renewed interest in IPOs. I think the firms that overreacted on manpower reductions will see themselves pinched for labor in a year or so.

5K/month until January. That is plum. I'll be in Aspen until my start date!!!

Agreed, 41

The problem wasn't transparency of higher salaries. It was the firms who joined in when they couldn't afford it, afraid that the top talent train was leaving with the raises.

I guess the Godfather took a hit after all.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/19/mayer-brown-saved-by-stoneridge-but-still-slammed-by-judge/

What do we make of this multi-tiered approach? Should incoming associates that find themselves deferred to January look for work elsewhere? Where do the year-long deferrals find themselves, on the hiring ladder? Are they on par with 2009 SA's, slightly ahead, slightly behind, or what? And how is MB deciding who to take in the fall?

which offices are most affected?

Anyone know if the DC office was hit?

Where is the news about the deferred start dates at K&S? A year deferral with no stipend is newsworthy

40: Best ATL commenter. Ever. There, I said it.

Staff doesn't matter? - Some of you really are worthless.

40: Best ATL commenter. Ever. There, I said it.

I couldn't agree with myself more.

WHY LAYOFF NOW, MB? DOW IS UP! RECESSION IS OVER!!!

I am not worthless. Just ask anyone.

Any word on severance for those laid off? (Best wishes to all such people, btw)

What about Paul Weiss?

Mayer Brown didn't cut nearly deep enough. The firm as a whole is only at 75% utilization. Problem being, they don't keep realization stats, only utilization. So the "busy litigation practice" they're talking about is real estate people sitting in on doc review and "registering" tons of hours ... that are not being billed to clients, and when are being billed, aren't being collected. It doesn't count as work if you're "billing" time that you choose to use sitting at a meeting when the client has already told you he's not paying for it. That's called volunteering.

Will deferred associates actually have jobs in Jan/Sept 2010?

If you want to see a summary of layoffs, deferrals, and more, go to http://lawfirmchaos.blogspot.com/

We promise no spelling or mathematical errors, only reporting errors which technically are not our fault since we are just reporting what we read on the internet or hear from snitches.

first years?

I can't believe people are blaming ATL for firms raising associate salaries. Are you kidding? One or two big firms did that of their own accord, then others followed suit. It was a timebomb of the firms' own making, and some members of the press called it when it happened - see, e.g., http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1172829801929 from March 2007 or this one from April 1-2 2006 (excerpt only):

Cut My Salary, Please!
By CAMERON STRACHER
April 1, 2006; Page A7

With the announcement that Sullivan & Cromwell will raise starting salaries for newly minted attorneys by $20,000, to $145,000 (plus bonus), a new arms race among law firms has broken out, the first since the dot com crash. Although it is difficult to believe that any 25-year-old is worth that much money, the salaries make a lot of economic sense for the firms. But they don't make sense for the young lawyers.
Corporate law firms are, essentially, giant pyramid schemes: The associates at the bottom funnel money to the partners at the top. At Sullivan & Cromwell, for example, according to the American Lawyer, the average partner earned $2.35 million last year. A young lawyer who bills 2,200 hours at $250 per hour generates $550,000 for the firm, only $145,000 of which pays his salary. The more the associates, the richer the partners (assuming there's enough work to keep them billing -- and, presumably, cooing). Thus, law firms have a vested interest in growing the base of the pyramid.
The competition for top law students, however, has intensified. Although firms have significantly increased in size, law school graduating classes have remained about the same. Investment banks have also stepped up their hiring, drawing talent from the same pool. As a result, there are many more buyers but the same number of sellers, increasing the price the sellers can command.
In addition, most associates know their chances of making partner at the big firms is less than 5%; thus, firms are paying them essentially to forgo the opportunity at partnership, in much the same way that professional football teams pay astronomical salaries to players whose careers last only four or five years. Once they depart for smaller firms or in-house jobs, they will not see their former salaries for years, if ever.
But what makes economic sense to the firms makes less sense for young lawyers. For one thing, each salary increase has been accompanied with a corresponding increase in billable minimums. When I started practicing, lawyers were expected to bill around 1,800 hours a year. These days, it's about 2,200. Those 400 extra billable hours translate to about 600 more hours at work, or approximately two to three more hours in the office each day. Even at 1,800 hours I worked until nine at night, and most weekends. At 2,200 hours, a lawyer might as well move a cot into his office.
Bonuses, salary increases and partnership chances are all tied to billable hours. Many law firms will not even grant a bonus unless an associate reaches a certain minimum, which used to be unheard of. Associates are paid more for their work, but not in proportion to the toll it has taken on their lives. In effect, the increase in billable hours has simply covered the rise in salaries. Even though most lawyers say they would prefer to work less and be paid less, associates are working longer to pay for their own raises. With the recent salary hike, they will be paying even more.
Meanwhile, the work itself has actually grown more dreary, if that is possible. Higher salaries have forced firms to look for new ways to increase revenues. One obvious solution is to throw more lawyers on a case, and to be more aggressive about litigating and challenging small matters that might otherwise go uncontested. The result is that the youngest lawyers get the most trivial and unnecessary work. Law firms claim they staff matters "leanly," but that doesn't justify the huge increases in the costs of litigation (and deal-making), which can only partly be explained by increases in fees. Instead, firms are lawyering matters to death, and killing their associates in the process.
It didn't used to be this way. Before the merger and litigation mania of the 1980s, before lawyers realized they could turn themselves into investment bankers, before there were too many of us, being a lawyer was a job rather than a chore -- not necessarily 9-to-5, but not 9-to-9, seven days a week, either. Bonuses were smaller or nonexistent, partnership chances greater and salaries reasonable. Lawyers tended to stick around, rather than jump firms every few years, and that loyalty fostered an environment where achievement was more subjective, not reckoned in cold hard cash and billable hours. That all changed in 1986, when Cravath Swaine & Moore increased starting salaries by nearly 25% -- from $53,000 to $65,000. Since then, with a few breaks for air, we've been off to the races.
Rather than crowing about their newfound earning power, however, young associates should be trembling: Their lives are about to get much worse. Perhaps they don't understand there's no such thing as a free lunch (or dinner). Or maybe they do understand, but they're too caught up in the race to care. As Pete Cornell, the managing partner at Clifford Chance told me about the young lawyers who work for his firm: "These guys are competitive. They're competing against others in the organization, and they want to get ahead." As long as there are law firms willing to pay them to have no lives, they will take the money.
But I want to make a modest proposal, something that will improve the lives of young lawyers by forcing them to re-evaluate their priorities: Tomorrow, law firms should cut starting salaries by 50%. The first thing that will happen, I predict, is that associates will rise up in revolt and refuse to work as hard for half the pay. The second thing that will happen is that law firms will need to look for ways to make up the difference.
They might hire more lawyers, but given the limitations in the market it will be difficult for the top law firms to find enough adequate candidates. Instead, I imagine a world in which every single line in a contract suddenly does not become a source of argument, every single step in a case a matter for a motion. Without the manpower to fight over every bone, lawyers will have to focus on the meat. With no skyrocketing salaries, the minimum billable requirement will wither and die, its usefulness served. In this kinder, gentler world, lawyers will have more time to spend with their families, to pursue their other passions, and to focus on the substance of their cases.
Who knows, they might even find they enjoy their jobs.

what kind of monster lays off more than half their first year class?

i'm looking at you, LATHAM.

If I may be so bold as to write on the blessed Comments section of ATL, law firms should reduce the salaries of the associates. Come on an average $160,000 in NYC. I think myself to be quite smart, but that is just crazy. A solid $100,000, while still insane, seems more accessible to me.

On another note . . .

Guys, we 3Ls are in the proverbial shi*er. Public interest jobs are getting eaten up, most of us are to limp d***ed to go into the military (like they are just waiting for us anyway), and, for the icing on the 2girls1cup cake, we have no confirmation either way from a large number of firms.

By the way, one more word about the DOW being up . . .

Anyone know the breakdown by office?

Wow. I love getting text messages from friends saying, "I heard about MB are you ok?" before I get a chance to check my email. Abovethelaw sure fills an important service of airing dirty laundry and rumor mongering. Keep up the shitty work, assholes.

Change has come for another 135 of my supporters.

I said I would create or save 4 million jobs. What you failed to understand is that still leaves about 96 million of you unemployed.

69- It's called news, @hole. When a firm lays off 135, I think that's something people might want to know about.

Would all the MB partners please stop posting? Thanks.

If first years were making $65,000 in 1986, that means that starting salaries have gone up about 4% per year since then. Associates are barely keeping up with inflation, while partners are getting richer and richer.

Goddamn, Mayer Brown makes me horny.

67 - Based on your writing skills, I think there might be a place for you at ATL.

69-

If it was really crap work why would you come here.

ATL reader

Oh, and 67, the Dow is definitely up.

Regarding comment 61
Mayer Brown doesn't keep realization stats? Are you kidding me? You are an idiot. Quit pretending you know anything. Not only is it calculated, any lawyer can look at their realization statistics on line any time they like. You are a buffoon.

Good point 73. Add in the increased billable hours expectations and associates are actually doing worse than ever, yet people still say they are overpaid.

I gotta agree with 67. 160k just makes absolutely no sense in this economy.

NY to 100k!

78 - don't be so critical. you may be right but i've been told that mgmt doesn't consider such stats when evaluating associates (whether rightly or wrongly).

Change has come: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu4.html?em

You are all idiots.

I work at Skadden.

78 here
To 61 and 81.

My apologies. Guess I was over the top. Bad day.

73 and 79 - right and those like 80 who say no to $160k have never checked a COL website to keep things in perspective. $160 is not much in NYC comparatively speaking, esp. if you have a lot of loans. obviously it's much better than 100K or 0k but that's a different issue.

71 - News? Give me a break. "News" is the information citizens need to keep their freedoms. The shit abovethelaw posts is scurrilous gossip.

85,

I don't think you get it. I'm not saying no to 160k. I'm saying yes to 100k instead of having my offer revoked. I don't think you understand that it is very likely that no one is going to start at 160k. I would just like it to come down to a level where everyone is secure.

64-Yes, this included first years

/ wrists

Although I think salaries for all lawyers are just too darn high, I agree that $160K in NYC doesn't go that far. I realize that many other professions have to make do in NY for less, but really - NYC is unbelievably unaffordable, and seems to cater to rich kids and investment bankers, so the average lawyer salary (at least at the lower levels) doesn't get far. I remember the days when a new lawyer could buy an apartment, on their salary - now despite the salary increases it's often a pipe dream. Cost of living in NYC has gone up way beyond junior salaries, so 10-20 years ago that $85K went way further than $160K does now.

5k a month? That's amazing! Milbank is cheap!!!! This shall not be forgotten!

Hey 87 - go find a firm in Tampa or Syracuse or Phoenix or something. Stop trying to drag the rest of us down with you.

87: This is what you have to understand. Firms are not conducting layoffs because they want to keep everyone but can't afford to pay $160k. They are doing layoffs because they have lots of lawyers who are not busy and it is cheaper to pay 500 lawyers at full capacity than it is to pay 1000 lawyers at half capacity, and this is REGARDLESS of how much money the lawyers are making. It is about capacity and utilization. They will not keep you around at any price if there is no work for you to do.

93 here. One point of clarification - this is true of the firms only if they are not worried about the stigma attached to conducting layoffs. In the past firms were concerned about it, but now the stigma is basically gone and the floodgates have opened.

Would partners please stop posting as nervous 3Ls? We get. You want to abuse us in good times, fire us in bad times, reduce our salaries at all times. You want to keep raising rates like clockwork and never think of voluntarily reducing your draw during a recession.

This is rational for you and well-understood by us. But don't try to mind fuck us with your "I'm a scared kid, please pay me less and don't revoke my offer" posts.

I say no groundswell of support for this PR campaign. Please keep in mind, I only toil for you in this stinking hole because you pay me so much. You're just going to have to sell the boat.

NOOOOOOOO!!! THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP AT THE END OF MARCH!!!!!

Anyone who thinks that a new associate is not worth $160,000 obviously went to law school because they failed basic economics.

First, no one is forcing the firms to pay $160,000, it just happens to be the market rate for big firms.

Second, I know a lot of people that work for mid-sized firms and made $100,000+ right out of law school. If the big firms reduce salaries for any reason other than the market rate has dropped, brain drain will follow.

Third, my plumber makes $100,000+ and he dropped out of high school.

Fourth, no one is forcing clients to pay high rates for outsourcing legal work to law firms, again, the rates are market rates and if they were too high, in house counsel would get off their ass and do the work themselves... but everyone that passed basic economics knows that big firms can take advantage of economies of scale and in the end it is cheaper for companies to pay the law firms rather than doing the work in house (unless you are talking about a F100 company that has so much work that they too can take advantage of economies of scale).

Fifth and finally, if you really think about it, $160,000 is not that much considering the hours, abuse, crappy, and mind-numbing work, debt, lost salary due to spending three extra years in school, and severely limited career options.

I used to have sex with someone from MB.

93: Our financial system is insolvent. Firms in NY thrive off of work from the financial system. You do the math.

But you're right, somewhat. 3L's will never start because there is no work for them.

Oh and maybe we should do a survey of all the associates that left biglaw in the past 10 years for a lower paying job or to open up a donut shop in the boonies just so we can find out why they would leave such a grossly overpaid job in biglaw for such crap work.

97: Your plumber had the right idea.

73, while I agree with your general statement that partners have done better than associates, money wise, since 1986, I do not agree that associates have tracked inflation. If you look at the inflation data since 1986 associates (assuming a base of $65,000) would only be earning approx $125,000 as of 2008. There are many reasons why the pay has been increased to $160,000, and many of those reasons are valid. I just wanted to point out that associate pay has been pretty good.
I for one strongly advocate not lowering salaries to $100,000, or anywhere below $145,000 for that matter. I understand the sadness over losing one’s job or the compassion for your colleagues when they are laid off. However, maintaining an inflated work force that is operating at less than capacity is a poor idea. Essentially, lowering the pay would create a class system within the associate ranks. There would be the busy associates who would effectively be subsidizing the non-busy associates. The non-busy associates could toss their dreams of partnership out the window, and the busy associates would have some level of resentment over the subsidy. Also, when the billable comes back the non-busy associates won't be as effective as they should be for their class year because of a lack of on the job training coupled with a year or more where they didn't do much.
Now, I realize that you can’t simply slash just to move your operating point to 100% utilization/realization because when times turn around you won’t have the manpower to take care of business. Therefore, a small decrease in salary might be prudent, if the economy demands it.

How has the London office fared? Can we expect cuts across the pond too? What will happen to incoming trainees?

What is with these "dow is up" people? And the Dow was what a year ago? BOOOOOOOYYYAAAHHHHHHH!

#41, 43, 46 - when you finally do get some work and you need help getting it done and out the door, hope you can figure out how to stuff an envelope and get it to the post office by yourself......

#41, 43, 46 I also hope you know how to do the billing because if the firm doesn't get paid, eventually neither will you.
I'm frankly surprised that some of you made it through college let alone law school with some of the incredibly bad grammar and writing structure I've corrected for associates over the years. What’s more, $160K for kids who don’t even know how to blow their nose when they get here is crazy. Who do you think shows you how to get things done you ungrateful brats!

98- Im jealous, I only nailed a SA there...

If Mayer Brown had saved money on its car insurance, they wouldn't have had to make these cuts.

Awesome 108!

#106 - Agreed. And after they do all the billing, take calls from clients that don't want to pay those bills, input all the timekeeping, edit all the documents, make the coffee, send the faxes, make the copies, make sure their CLE requirements are fulfilled and filed with the state on time, they can unjam the xerox and do all the filing .....thank God I stopped at an undergrad degree. Apparently that extra 3 years sucks the common sense right out of ya......

The diffference between paying a first year 165 vs 145 matters little to most firms. The firms that are doing layoffs have far more serious problems --- they cannot borrow the money they did in the past. The typical law firm model is for a firm to take a loan on Jan 1, pay it back over the course of the year; around sept the loan is paid off and everything thereafter is profit. But last year Lehman went in the toilet in September; billables and collections went to shit. Some law firms either did not pay off their loans or did so so late the made liitle profits. On top of that, the bank that loaned them x last year will only loan half of x this year. What do the law firms do in response? They only thing they can --- the cut expenses, ie associates. It is all about cash flow. To survive you need huge cuts 10 to 20 of expenses.

Perhaps everyone and, I mean lawyers & management specifically, can learn a major lesson & live within their means. For those attorneys who think staff don't matter, remember ALL people are created equal, or haven't you heard that before (school, equal rights movements, etc.)? Thankfully, not all attorneys are such self-indulgent, self-centered brats.

Perhaps everyone and, I mean lawyers & management specifically, can learn a major lesson & live within their means. For those attorneys who think staff don't matter, remember ALL people are created equal, or haven't you heard that before (school, equal rights movements, etc.)? Thankfully, not all attorneys are such self-indulgent, self-centered brats.

Perhaps everyone and, I mean lawyers & management specifically, can learn a major lesson & live within their means. For those attorneys who think staff don't matter, remember ALL people are created equal, or haven't you heard that before (school, equal rights movements, etc.)? Thankfully, not all attorneys are such self-indulgent, self-centered brats.

111 - Well run firms do not have any debt. For example, Weil has 0 debt and sits on more capital than most banks have. I am sure Wachtell is the same.

"Well run" is less than probably10% of the firms. Most have debt. Only a tiny minority do not. To avoid debt you need a lot of deferred payment and all partners to make a capital contribution even non-equity. How many firms have this?

97 has some good points. plus, if you are billing 2400 hours (the good times) you are at the office the equivalent of two jobs. you are getting paid to not have a life, rarely a full weekend off all year, if the partner needs you on Thanksgiving, 4th of July weekend, your honeymoon, your anniversary, etc. you are working or calling in for a meeting. Non-lawyers and lawyers at small firms or government only focus on the salary and not all the other crap that goes along with it.

112 - I agree with you. Some of these attorneys on this post makes my @ss ache. You are all spoiled brats that have nothing better to do but to complain. Gimme a break.

mayor mccheese > mayer mcbrown

I fucked several dudes at Mayer Brown...they all had small dicks and bent over in a minute once they saw my big dick.

March job report comes out tomorrow.

1 .Fire 90% of the secretaries. They're highly paid receptionists. Word processing is good enough.
2 .Fire all of the paralegals except for the best one or two. Associates can do that work. And the firm will get paid more for it.
3. Get rid of all of the 1st years who didn't graduate with honors. Esp. any 1st year that failed the bar...

115, are you dumb? If a law firm also has as much capital as a bank, they wouldn't qualify as being "well run." What would be the point of accumulating a high level of capital only to sit on it? Why not distribute the wealth to the partners? A huge aspect of debt is efficiency... if a law firm can borrow short term on a line of credit, then repay within the year, the interest that they pay off (ignoring the cost of failure risks) is worth less than the value of profits in their pocket (that would otherwise be tied up in the firm's capital warchest if firms followed your model). This also says nothing of the host of conflict of interest issues if law firms with capital become investors / market participants.

123, you're an idiot. Almost all businesses "sit on" as much capital as banks. The only reason bank regulations require them to keep capital on hand (and that most other companies are not subject to such regulation) is that banks make money off of expending cash (thereby creating more risk). Your basis for concluding that law firms are not well run is asinine. That doesn't mean that law firms are well run, but your reasoning is poor.

111--

It appears as though you have not come face to face with partner greed. I can assure you that it matters a great deal. That's a nice weekend trip to the bunny ranch. They're not about to give that up just so associates can do such things are pay their bills, service their debt and eat. For the most part, partners just don't give a shit.

I'm sorry. Good luck to those at MB impacted today.

don't be obsessed with your desires Danny

69 & 86 = typical MB Dbag. That place is full of stiffs. well, somewhat full now.

mayor brown is full of scum bags. my next door neighbor is a partner there. this dick head complains about our dog barking. one day he comes over and bangs on our front door - in his pajamas and barefoot - and screams at me. what a loser - i found out he had been fired from is job months earlier. mayor brown needs to hire some lesbian partners who are willing to have sex with clients like king and spalding - that will help business

mayor brown is full of scum bags. my next door neighbor is a partner there. this dick head complains about our dog barking. one day he comes over and bangs on our front door - in his pajamas and barefoot - and screams at me. what a loser - i found out he had been fired from his job months earlier - probably for being an asshole. mayor brown needs to hire some lesbian partners who are willing to have sex with clients like king and spalding - that will help business

129/130, that sense made no post.

#45
I am an associate laid off with litigation experience from one of these big firms where can I contact you?

#25
I too am an associate laid off with litigation experience. If you are interviewing where could I reach you.
Thanks

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF THE LESBIAN PARTNERS!

I can not believe how rude the comments are on this blog, mostly written by attorneys. I have been a paralegal for many years and have worked with some wonderful attorneys over the years. On the flip side I have also worked with attorneys who thought the world revolved around them, mostly the young associates. You don't need a secretary or paralegal? Who do you think picks up the slack when you trudge yourself out to lunch, or to an office function, or home to get some rest. I have spent many an all nighter in the office while the attorney went home to get his/her beauty rest only to have that same attorney come in the next morning and gripe at me because I complained I was tired. When I haven't slept for 3 days or seen my family I love to be asked "what are you complaining for don't you get overtime"? Just like the associates paralegals have billing requirements they need to meet and, by the way, our biling rates are lower and we are more efficient than attorneys. I have been witness to associates lying to partners to make themselves look good by taking credit for work I have completed and dropping me in the grease the first chance they got. Do they teach a course in law school on how to make yourself look good by making everyone around you look and feel like crap? I think it's a shame that a firm like Mayer Brown is experiencing difficult times and all some of you can talk about is how many people you have slept with at the firm or what and asshole some partner is because your dog is barking. Do we not have compassion for people losing their jobs. Sorry, I forgot, associates don't have compassion. You guys really are the "Devil's Advocates"!!!!!

Mayer Brown has bigger problems than just tough economic times...

#122 - You're obviously too much of an asshole to have ever kept a really good legal secretary. Legal secys are not overpaid receptionists. Do you even know how much a legal secy makes? Many of them have four year degrees and actually THINK and do what needs to be done long before you've figured out what the next step is.....a good legal secy is INVALUABLE to a lawyer. But, I guess you know everything and don't mind "doing windows" when all you have left is a word processor that only knows how to edit a document and not what the whole purpose of the document actually might be or why its so damn important to your client. Get ready, JERKOFF, once you get rid of 90% of your firm's secys, you'll be the one standing at the xerox and sharpening your partner's pencils.

122: while you're at it, why not eliminate the entire Marketing Dept. You've got nothing to do anyway besides blog so you can handle client development and the few RFPs that trickle in from time to time. Might as well get rid of Accounting too. You can handle the "books" since you seem to know so much about how firms operate and what they really need to keep the same level of service for those few clients that you have left. And let's get rid of reception. The Word Processor can answer the phone too.

Big up to 135, 105, 106 and 122. I've been on the support/staff end for almost 20 years in various positions and would luv to see any of the azzwipes commenting "only attorneys matter" succeed without a secretary or staff members in other departments. Pity the fool that is asking "what is staff"...must be a law student. The idiot that says fire all the secretaries cause WP is enough go back to your village they are looking for you. WP is just that WORD PROCESSING they do DOCUMENTS that your secretaries cannot do uninterrupted, specializing in programs that secretaries are not trained in. NONE of you first years are worth 165,000 you have no EXPERIENCE and you have made no contacts to bring business to the firm! The person that posted "Fifth and finally, if you really think about it, $160,000 is not that much considering the hours, abuse, crappy, and mind-numbing work, debt, lost salary due to spending three extra years in school, and severely limited career options." You made the CHOICE to go the law school/take the big law offer STFU nobody twisted your freaking arm it was a CHOICE. Stop complaining about how expensive NY is! Yes it is expensive BUT you do not have to live in MIDTOWN, eat out at EVERY NIGHT and have a starbuck venti whatever every freaking morning.

Ooops recinding my big up to 122 he is one of the idiots. You tell em 137 and 138 but hey hey easy on the word processing OPERATORS a word processor is a machine. I agree wholeheardtedly with you 137 to a point, there is a helluva lot more to word processing than just editing a document i.e., styles TOCs TOAs, compatibility issues, combining different software etc. so again THEY CANNOT function/succeed without US secretaries, wp operators, accouting staff, marketing even housekeeping cause again they come to work and act like someone is supposed to pick-up after them in addition to doing the work they are hired to do. Some of these nasty byatches men and women alike don't even wash their dayum hands after using the bathroom (I don't eat anything lose or any of that left-over food people scavange for like buzzards).

124 is confused. "Almost all businesses 'sit on' as much capital as banks." You do know what core capital is, right? You have looked at a balance sheet before, right? Feel free to drop the names of at least a few businesses (note: a far cry from the "almost all" above) outside of the F100 with more than $5B cash on hand (slightly more than 8%, =general capital adequacy requirement, of the 25th largest bank's assets). If you find some, and I guarantee you it is far from "almost all," you will note that these companies are growth-oriented, generating capital that they will deploy in the future, e.g., organic growth, M&A, etc. More mature companies will pay dividends because that's what their equity holders demand.

Now... since we're talking about law firms who don't grow as big or as fast as your typical company (Latham excepted), what possible use would a law firm like Weil have for sitting on as much capital as "most" banks? Just answer why they wouldn't be pressured to distribute this money back to the partners?

I admit that I have no specialized knowledge of law firm accounting. However, your arguments/facts do not seem to comport w/financial reality.