Figgit FIRST!

Captain FIRST!

2. Suck it Captain FIRST!

-- 1

Ward Churchill was fired because he lied about many many aspects of his resume... which people started investigating because of his essay.

Lithwick: LEAVE HAROLD KOH ALONE!!!!

Seriously, I love the irony of Dahlia Cutesy McEuphemism Lithwick getting all flustered over the right painting Obama's exec branch legal nominations (and judicial ones, soon enough) as outside the mainstream. Not that I find any of the crazies rallying against Koh persuasive, but the turning of the tables is quite amusing to behold.

He was fired because he was a liar and a cheat. Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.

160k to 100k? if my 2000 hour requirement goes to 1250 hours, with bonuses over that, I'm on board.

Any word on MWE?

Yes, Ward Churchill claimed to have been (1) a Native American and (2) an infantry scout in Vietnam, neither of which are true. He's not an Indian, and he was a film projectionist in the Army. He also falsified and plagiarized his research. But he fits right in at the hippie commune that passes for the University of Colorado. Go Buffs!

I normally do not comment on anything written in the NYTimes, however, Mr. Cohen's article echoes exactly what I have been saying for many years about stopping the madness that has become associate compensation. $100K for 2,000 billable hours is fair compensation.

NY to 100K! Note however, that your billable rate will also plummet, so your hours will remain 2000+. Have a good life.

This from the NYT: "Clients are also likely to benefit — and consumers, since legal fees are built into the cost of almost everything."

I look forward to the NYT's discussion of class action extortion, cap and trade carbon taxes, and health insurance mandates. These must be bad for consumers, too.

Dear Nell -

Just pick one school and stay there, already.

Yours,
UConn

Cue bitching and moaning about how you can't live in NY on $100k. Can't wait.

First to say Partner Emeritus's face looks like a vagina eating lemons.

SMU3L

Oh noes! 100k? While the mouth breathers that went to business school rake in 3 times that? It's a good thing I'm passionate about mindless doc review and due diligence. My work is its own reward.

Still no mention of Covington's response. Odd, since there were multiple posts about Yolanda Young's side of the suit. I guess since their response eviscerates her claims there's no need to mention it here?

Scooby Doo is on Cartoon Network.

-Recently Unemployed NY First Year

You can't live in NY on 100K. But you can have three 3500 sq ft wives and 3 three sweet Lexises in Texis.

Why have 3 Lexises? I get by on one Lexis and one WestLaw.

19 - good point. let's start saving money by ratcheting Texas back to 80k where it belongs.

Receiving business model advice from the smouldering remains of what was once the New York Times is like attending marriage counseling hosted by O.J. Simpson.

Isn't it kind of ridiculous that firms ever paid 160 in TX?

19 - Are you retarded? It is spelled Lexus. Go back to your GULC part time program.

22: priceless

As to Ward Churchill - regardless of the disposition of his wrongful termination suit, he should be labelled [what was once known as an] "enemy combatant" and sent to Gitmo (which should be kept open, just for him)

Ward Churchill to 190k!!!

Be mindful of the source. Adam Cohen, the author of the legal reform piece in the Times, is a former public interest lawyer citing Lawshucks and unnamed "industry watchers" (probably ATL) for his info. Perhaps he's not the most authoritative voice on the issue.

19 - Awesome!

That guy kind of looks like an ass lobster in a suit.

24 - Get a sense of humor and read some comments from previous blogs when a tool wrote Lexis instead of Lexus.

24- are you one of those autistic people with no sense of humor???

Do you not get the joke?

Salaries at 100k will reduce the grueling hours of associates?
hahahaha.
Not that many of them understand how grueling the hours should be. They still want long weekends and dogs that need mid day walkies.

17 - Yeah, flailing like a smacked down child is really a great legal response. It looks real good to a jury to say "Yes, we hired her, and other Negroes who performed well, but did not have the pedigree to become 'real' people in the legal world". That shit might fly with the broken shitheads that are biglaw in general, but try dumping it on a jury. Settle. Settle now Covington, you have already fucked your myopic selves.

24 - Dumbest comment ever since nervous T-101L has left. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your fat soul.

Thomas G. Burish is not a man of honor.

Ward Churchill will be your platoon leader when the revolution comes, you unemployed entitled snots. So get used to saying "Yes Sir" to him now, before you're on the other side of the rifle.

The NYT is retarded -- no wonder they're going out of business. They think that just b/c they're reducing salaries of their "elite" "journalists," that the world MUST be falling apart.

Do the math. 1st years often made $190k w/ bonus. If salaries go to 100k., that would be a 47% drop in salaries. Yeah, that sort of deflation has NEVER happened. If it gets to that point, the economy would collapse. The NYT should hire a staff economist to validate the nonsense they write.

lol @ 24. typical law students who doesn't understand flame. rofl. moron.

24, you're an idiot, and 20 beat you to it anyway..

I DON"T WANT A LARGE FARVA. I WANT A GODDAMN LITRE A COLA!

$100K? You're going to have a great life!

33:
Maybe you should read the response and the letter to the EEOC first before you next comment.

The people demand a post on the Covington reply!

33 - wow. Haven't practiced law much, have you?

Say what you will about Ward Churchill, but his Baby Boomer pony tail his hip and groovy. Don't trust anyone over 80, Ward, and don't let the Man keep you down.

17 - Instead of posting this crap on every thread, why not post a link to the response and let us read it for ourselves? Or is that too much work for the C&B HR department?

Reed Smith is a law firm.

A 2000 hour year is a little less than 170 hours a month, which breaks down to just over 40 hours a week.

Most DAs that I know work much more than that., yet they make about $60K. And they have actual responsibilities, unlike you BigLaw ass-clowns who spend all day reviewing documents, checking ATL, and bragging about the "good old days" in a top-tier law school when someone actually gave a shit about what you were doing.

Get over yourselves. Maybe a pay decrease is exactly what your ego needs.

"A 2000 hour year is a little less than 170 hours a month, which breaks down to just over 40 hours a week."

That's hours billed, not hours worked.

No 37,
the economy does not collapse if new lawyers see their first salary cut in half.

47 - never practiced huh? Billing 40 hours a week, especially as a first year, means working 70-80 hours. Numbnuts.

47 - As opposed to spending the day checking ATL and bitching about other people making more money than you do. DA's don't spend time online because their government-funded internet connections are too slow.

47 - I see The Hofstra Touro School Law taught you well.

47 here: If you're working 70-80 hours to bill 40, you either REALLY suck at what you do, you need a new job with bosses that don't cut your time, or what you are doing is so RIDICULOUSLY insignificant that no one can justify billing you out for the work you're actually doing.

I've practiced for 4 years now in a mid-size firm. I arrive at 8, leave at 6, take an hour for lunch, and bill about +/- 9 hours day. I've never failed to hit 2000 hours.

Do I make less than someone my age at a BigLaw firm? Yes. What's the difference:

a) I like my job
b) I've been in a courtroom; tried a case; taken depositions; argued motions; argued appeals; and have my own clients. In other words, I'm a lawyer --- not an glorified paralegal.
c) I'm not afraid of losing my job.
d) I have a life outside my job

Good luck with your lateral searches, you overpaid, underqualified egomaniacs.

If you have to work 70-80 hours a week to bill 40, you deserve to be fired without severance. However, $160K is appropriate pay (at a big firm) for one BILLING 2100+ hours a year. The economy may call for salary cuts with more emphasis on bonus compensation. $100K would perhaps be appropriate for one only billing 1000 hours a year, even if through no fault of their own. This could be the salary and hours requirements with additional money for more hours.

45 - here's a link:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/young_eeoc.pdf

Or, if that doesn't work, here's the main post, through which you can link to the EEOC letter:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/young-hires-new-lawyer-in-suit-against-covington.html

You can also access Covington's entire answer through PACER, if you had any idea how to use it.

Sincerely,
A different person than 17 (who actually works at a competitor to Covington)

53 - I've known many plaintiff firm hacks like you. The only reason you don't get slammed for bilking clients is because $40 an hour isn't enough to bitch about.

56: You don't bill hours at a plaintiff's firm, you douchebag.

And the reason I don't get slammed for "bilking clients" is because I do actual work.

47 - I agree with points a-d: your work-life balance is probably great, and being at a smaller firm makes it easier to bill all the work you do.

But it is an unfortunate feature of BigLaw junior associate life that they can't bill for much of the time spent at the office. It doesn't have to do with competence, it has to do with what clients will pay for.

50, you're clearly the one who's never practiced (or you're the least efficient lawyer in the history of the industry). It should take no more than 50 hours to bill 40. And that's basically what this job is -- a 50 hour a week job. It's not that grueling (except those months when it is).

My issue with the $100k thing is that we're readying for a period of massive inflation with the Treasury printing a trillion new dollars (and possibly a lot more). So a $160k salary is already going to be worth a hell of a lot less than it is very soon (though obviously not as little as $100k). The only number I've heard talking to partners is a possible reduction to $145k for first-years, which is still $20k more that I made when I started in 2005.

-SF 5th Year

Ward Churchill also thought Katie Hnida was a terrible kicker. Go Buffs!

47: Dude, you sound incredibly bitter. If you're actually happy, why so much hate?

58: I agree completely. Which is why paying someone $160K to do work that no one will pay for is ridiculous.

When did the crappy economy give every non-big law bitter T-14 reject permission to start shitting on the people who were smarter, more successful and more ambitious than they ever hoped to be?

62 - yes. And that's why firms are shedding associates and probably shrinking salaries - it's the market readjusting itself to current conditions. When everyone was making money hand over fist, 160k for drudge work was no big deal. Now it's overinflated. When demand shrinks, prices go down.

Who says we're all socialists? Sounds like capitalism to me.

Under what circumstances would it ever be appropriate for a US court to apply Islamic law? I can imagine private parties stipulating in a contract that it would be governed by Sharia, but even then I would have reservations about a secular court interpreting what some religion requires of its adherents.

No, 56. Of course we cut associates time. But if I had to cut FIFTY % of one of my associates time, they would be spoken to.

V10 NSP

53 -
Really? If you only work 9 hours per day, it's not possible to ethically bill more. For the math impaired lawyers (8 to 6 is 10 hours - 1 hour for lunch = 9 hours). I'm sure you mean that on occasion you work longer than 9 hours per day and thus bill more. But you never use the bathroom, make personal calls, or post comments on message boards; right?

67, if the distraction is less than 3 minutes, then you round it down since you're billing in 6 minute increments. That is all.

If the 1st year salary ever was reduced to 100k, I really don't know how I (or crazier people than I) would react. I think I could go off the fucking deep end.
- 3L in 180k debt

That New York Times article is a joke. The Dow is up 2 hundy and its not even noon. Mark my words, we'll ride this bull all the way to 190 before this run is over.

Welcome back, Dow Is Up Guy. No layoffs today!

68,
Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. You claim to be one of those super-efficient lawyers who can bill more than 24 hours per day. Pretty sure that's unethical. Thanks for playing.

"Lower pay should mean that associates will not need to work the grueling hours many have been forced to. And it will mean less pressure to go into private practice for law graduates who would rather do something else."

Yeah right, that wll be the day. If they cut my salary by 60K without cutting my target from 1900 to something more humane, like 1400, it's probably time to pack it in.

Why the author of the NYT article is an idiot: "New associates often earn more than the judges they appear in front of."
Yes, all those associates three months in arguing motions...

At Wilmer a few years ago, a first-year submitted a time sheet for 24 hours. As 66 said, he was "spoken to."

73 - hours will not drop. Your firm will also cut your billable rate to appease the clients. You will still be expected to work 1900 hours, and be expected to be grateful to have it. Time to write that novel?

74: This is 47 here, again.

I argued a motion for continuance in state court, on my own, three weeks after I was hired. (I clerked for a judge for a year before I started, so I was already licensed by that time.)

Granted, a motion for continuance is not a particularly advanced argument. But the fact is: my bosses let me go to court three weeks into my legal career; whereas you find it completely incomprehensible that someone would go to court three months in.

So, I ask you: whose job sucks more? Mine or yours?

Both your jobs suck. Always beware the overstated - 47 is defensive about something.

The paragraph that 73 cites is ludicrous. Lower pay will put less pressure on students to go into private practice?

As long as students are graduating with six figure debts, and private practice salaries are markedly higher that govt/PI jobs, WE HAVE NO CHOICE, friendo.

76: 73 here, no, can't write worth a damn, I'd just go corporate middle management, I have a masters in business and prior pre-law work experience. Maybe I'd try government work for a a while. Law, big or small, is not the be all and end all. Oh, and I'd leave the east coast for a nicer place with a slower rat race where my savings would go further in terms of real estate or starting a business.

ADAM COHEN | Legal Affairs
ADAM COHEN

Adam Cohen is a lawyer and author, with a particular interest in legal issues, politics and technology. Before joining the Times editorial board in 2002, he was a senior writer at Time, where he wrote about the Supreme Court, Internet privacy and the Microsoft antitrust case, among other topics.

Prior to entering journalism, he was an education-reform lawyer, and a lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala. He is the author of "Nothing to Fear: FDR’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America," "The Perfect Store: Inside eBay" and co-author of "American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J. Daley, His Battle for Chicago and the Nation." A native of Manhattan, he is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science, Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

Kudos, 73/80. It's refreshing to see someone with a plan, instead of all the associates threatening to off themselves. Good luck.

Dear Biglaw firm that I'm going to,
Please disregard the industry watcher cited in the paper.

Yours,
3L looking for apartments in South Bronx

Don't worry, 83. No one reads the New York Times. Except Kash, apparently.

Is billing 24 hours in a day (not over 24) never a possibility?

I assume 85 is a flame post, but I'm taking the bait anyway. It is a physical impossibility to ethically bill 24 hours in a day, unless you don't eat, hit the bathroom, check your email, or let your attention wander. So unless you have super-human powers of concentration and sphincter control, 24 hours is pretty much impossible.

Any V20 law firm that reduces associate starting salaries is trash ... especially if other top firms don't do the same . . . 100K is ridiculous.

To the partners who think associates are overpaid, what the fuck do you think you are? Paid for what you're worth? Absolutely not ... associates work as hard as you deserve their salaries, which are about a fifth of what you get.

Make getting a top job more competitive, but don't lower the compensation.

Democrat saboteurs ruined Stevens' career. By any means necessary...

65, if sharia required cutting a hand off, US courts would not apply it. either you've never been to law school, or they don't teach you at cooley about the public policy exception, and the contracts requring illegal activities (cutting off hands as punishment) are unenforceable.

86 - I read over discovery in the can all the time.

#85, I work with a guy who hit 25 hours in a one-day trip across time zones with a client to finish a deal. Pretty nice to put it on the timesheet that way.

87 = yet another overindulged little puke waiting for his trophy.

While one partner may legitimately complain that another is overcompensated, a firm's partnership (as a whole) is never overcompensated vis-a-vis associates. Associate comp is a firm expense (overhead, like electricity); partners are compensated based solely on the firm's profits (the excess of income over expenses). Firms don't start with partner comp and work backwards to determine associate salaries, they determine salaries and other discretionary expenses up front and (as a group) they get paid based on whether they did a good job of forecasting business levels.

You can argue that associate comp is too low, or rates are too high or that it's "morally wrong" to make more that x times the lowest paid worker, but a firm's partners (as a group) cannot be overpaid.

Fire away.

87 = yet another overindulged little puke waiting for his trophy.

While one partner may legitimately complain that another is overcompensated, a firm's partnership (as a whole) is never overcompensated vis-a-vis associates. Associate comp is a firm expense (overhead, like electricity); partners are compensated based solely on the firm's profits (the excess of income over expenses). Firms don't start with partner comp and work backwards to determine associate salaries, they determine salaries and other discretionary expenses up front and (as a group) they get paid based on whether they did a good job of forecasting business levels.

You can argue that associate comp is too low, or rates are too high or that it's "morally wrong" to make more that x times the lowest paid worker, but a firm's partners (as a group) cannot be overpaid.

Fire away.

53 almost certainly works for some crappy insurance defense firm where you essentially bill in “averages”, meaning you file some moronic Answer to a car accident complaint which took you 10 minutes to cut & paste some name changes, but you bill 1.5 to 2 hours for drafting the Answer, because that’s how long it would take if you started from scratch. Or you bill 2.5 hours for “preparing for deposition”, even thou it just a sit in for you and you won’t ask any questions and there is no need or you to even look at the file. It’s totally unethical, causes stress because you may get caught doing it, but if you didn’t do it, you’d bill like 1000 per year and be thrown out on your ass.

53 almost certainly works for some crappy insurance defense firm where you essentially bill in “averages”, meaning you file some moronic Answer to a car accident complaint which took you 10 minutes to cut & paste some name changes, but you bill 1.5 to 2 hours for drafting the Answer, because that’s how long it would take if you started from scratch. Or you bill 2.5 hours for “preparing for deposition”, even thou it just a sit in for you and you won’t ask any questions and there is no need for you to even look at the file. It’s totally unethical, causes stress because you may get caught doing it, but if you didn’t do it, you’d bill like 1000 per year and be thrown out on your ass.

93 -- Who said I'm an associate? (partners can recognize that their partner colleagues are overpaid) --- you're probably a partner who doesn't pull his/her weight at some TTT firm

94: Right. Because people in BIGLAW never pad their hours. Give me a break - it's an art form in BIGLAW.

Thanks for the first year contracts lesson, 89. Now answer the question of under what circumstances a US could _would_ apply Islamic law.

87/96 -- the choice of pronouns in your original post gives you away as an associate.

And yes, I am a partner who doesn't pull my weight at a TTT firm. But guess what: I still make 7 figures and I have more job security than you.

#53 is one of those self-righteous, morally superior "I've actually been in a courtroom" folks - who has some kind of inferiority complex so he likes to lord his litigation experience over people - I've been in courtrooms also, both judicial and administrative - big freaking deal - it was nothing to brag about - my experience isn't better than a biglaw associate who does doc review and due diligence all day - my experience is just different - where did we get this idea that the only "real" lawyers are litigators? sounds like too much television and film, where lawyers have to litigate in order to bring the drama for the audience - by this logic, the only "real" doctors are the guys doing nightshift triage in some inner-city emergency room and everybody else is twiddling their thumbs - LOL

99 --- I'd rather make 7 figures at a decent firm ... enjoy the TTT

Wow, 101. I guess I was wrong about you being an associate. You're clearly a law student. Do you really think it matters where you make a comfortable living? Why?

I have no dog in this fight, but it looks like a time for a repost:

a primer on how to bill time:

(1) at end of each day, count number of hours you were at work.
(2) add minutes spent thinking about work while commuting, in the shower, at lunch, etc.
(3) add minutes spent working last evening at home that were not included in previous day's tally
(4) subtract only those minutes that are absolutely not work related
(5) allocate, according to approximately what you remember you did that day, the total from 1 - 4 to all your open matters.

I followed these rules (especially doing time every day) for five years at biglaw and billed very efficiently (usually an hour or less of dead time per day).

Do not sell yourself short. Billing your time efficiently is everything.

- Happily in-house and no longer billing time.

96 = associate

102 -- yes, for the same reasons it matters where you go to law school

Just say No to Koh

#83 & 84 - Even the NY times recognizes that BigLaw is going down - but there has already been blood in the suites - just ask those of us beheaded

NewTTTon leaving HasTTTings. What a traitor. Then again it's actually a smart decision, Hastings sucks. A word to the wise from a Hastings alum (me) never attend that school or work there in any capacity. It's horrible.