Covington & Burling Staff Attorneys: An Endangered Species?
In March, we reported that Skadden was essentially canceling its staff attorney program. We reported:
Only staff attorneys that were “integral” to ongoing matters have been kept on. And there is no word on whether those people will have any job security after their matters wrap up.
It appears that Covington & Burling is also undergoing a major reduction of its staff attorney program.
Tipsters (including some recently laid off staff attorneys) report that firm management has decided to effectively discontinue its staff attorney program. The firm has been letting go of staff attorneys at the rate of a couple per week over the last few weeks. As we understand it, as staff attorneys finish up their active matters, they are being let go.
Our sources tell us that the decision was made by firm management some weeks back. At the time the decision was made, the staff attorney manager was out of the office on vacation. When she came back, she allegedly told Covington’s staff attorneys that they should start circulating their resumes.
In some cases, laid off staff attorneys are being given a one week severance option. One week, if they sign a form promising not to sue the firm over the circumstances of their termination. Some Covington personnel that spoke to Above the Law believed that clause is proof that Covington decided to move out staff attorneys as a response to the lawsuit filed by former-Covington Staff Attorney Yolanda Young.
After the jump, we have statements from Covington & Burling, and Yolanda Young.
Back in March, we reported that Yolanda Young filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Covington. The firm fired back with a response stating that none of Young’s claims had any merit.
Some of our sources worried that the staff attorneys currently at Covington were paying the price for Young’s lawsuit. But the firm denies that this is the case. Covington spokespeople provided Above the Law with the following statement about the firm’s staff attorney program:
We do not plan to discontinue the staff attorney program, and we will continue to retain staff attorneys on an as-needed basis. The number of staff attorneys we employ has always fluctuated with the document review projects that clients have asked us to perform. As competitive marketplace alternatives to the staff attorney model have increased, we have fewer projects and have released staff attorneys we are unable to assign. The decreased demand for staff attorneys has nothing to do with the lawsuit filed by Yolanda Young.We offered either one or two weeks of severance, depending on length of service, in exchange for a release.
That sounds like Covington is turning its staff attorneys into contract attorneys. But it is pretty hard for a firm to carry around extra capacity in these difficult economic times.
When we spoke with Yolanda Young, she was not surprised that the ax is falling on Covington’s staff attorneys:
I am not surprised that this is happening. It clearly shows that [Covington] knows they have problems with the program, some of which I raised in my lawsuit. It is incredibly disappointing that rather than try to make the program fair and treat employees with respect, they are choosing to terminate attorneys in this clandestine manner. … And it is especially disheartening that they are asking people to waive their civil liberties on their way out of the door.
She added that she could put disgruntled (former) Covington staff attorneys in touch with a good lawyer.
Skadden and Covington are two firms that have not fired associate attorneys during this economic crisis. But there has been a well documented slow down in the demand for legal services. Firms like these could be in a situation where somebody has to go, and it appears that staff attorneys have drawn the short straw. Associates often ask partners to take a pay cut in order to avoid having to fire associates. Are there any associates out there willing to take a pay cut so that the firm can keep on its staff attorneys?
Good luck, displaced Covington staff attorneys.
Earlier: Staff Layoff Watch: The Bell Tolls for Skadden Staff
Covington and Its ‘Staff Attorney Ghetto’?
(63) 
Comments
Firstie!
asian girls to 190
MPP
Looks like C and B isn't even immune
Great.
Given I have $250,000 in debt and no job, an avenue to redemption is now closed through the termination of staff attorney positions.
I have no choice but to say this --
I would rather dance in the pale moonlight with Fremen and Face Dancers doing battle with each other on the desert in Arrakis rather than be a staff attorney at Covington & Burling.
"they choosing to terminate attorneys in this clandestine manner. "
Nice grammar Yolanda...me be choosing to go to Taco Bell tonight.
Ya, I'm sure that clients are going to be more than willing in this economic climate to pay high rates for associates to do the monkey work that was formerly done by staff associates for cheaper rates.
Looks like C&B associates are going to be doing scut work while partners are going to be doing the work of third and fourth year associates.
Good times, good times.
That place is a shitsplat. Always has been.
SkaddenDC for the win.
I got offered a staff attorney position at C&B in 2005 for $50k a year. When in house instead, thankfully. How can firing attorneys making that little while being billed out at god-knows-what make financial sense?
In military terms, staff attorneys are akin to mercenaries. As such, they have no loyalty to a firm or a cause. They are a hired gun. I am glad C&B is only giving staff hacks one week's pay as severance. It is a fair exchange for a release. In my opinion, hired hacks deserve the courtesy of being escorted out of the building without severance. Perhaps Obama has a job for these hacks in his Justice Department.
Yolanda Young, I don't think "civil liberties" means what you think it means.
reduce associate rates- you guys don't think you're being billed out at $365 right now, do you (1st yrs)?
Screw em!
Has Skadden DC finally imploded? Inquiring minds want to know.
Smell my fingers!
Although I have no sympathy or use for lawyers, except when they authorized torture, it's not fair to lay this on Ms. Young. As PE says, this is all Obama's fault. Everything was okey-dokey when I was President.
If you read the response from Covington, you'll see that Young graduated from GULC in 1995 with a C average and didn't pass the bar until 1998.
She should thank her lucky stars that she had any job whatsoever.
Wasn’t that “Notes from the Welfare Line” chick working as a staff attorney? What she gonna do now?
only 1-2 weeks severance? that seems cruel. how long had most of the staff attorneys been working there?
Obama has saved the job of everyone who has not been laid off. He is the greatest Prezdint ever. He's like saved hundreds of millions of jobs, and he's only been in office four months.
So...should they or anyone for that matter sign a release? I mean if you do sign a release and later find out there were fishy circs surrounding your release are you without recourse?
- HLS 1L
18,
They've had SAs there for varying periods of time. Some have been there over 4 years.
SAs = Sturmabteilung
Didn't know C&B and other firms were Nazi-dominated.
Every firm requires a release in order to receive severance.
18- I believe that about 20 staff attorneys have been at Covington for over four years. That's longer than most associates!
Given the longevity, you would think that associates would be given the boot sooner than staff associates.
wow, that yolanda chick is dumb. no wonder they fired her. Every place under the sun requires one to sign a release before they give severance. They don't have to give any severance, it's at-will employment (and don't start that restatement 90 shit).
What a dumb fuck, she's probably married to Elie.
25,
But the long-lived SAs don't have any particularly valuable skill sets, other than reviewing documents. Sure they might get good at generating priv logs and managing document productions, but you can easily retain a handful of the best SAs (to retain their knowledge) and let go of the rest.
"Skadden and Covington are two firms that have not fired associate attorneys during this economic crisis."
SHHHHHHHHHH YOU'RE GOING TO CALL DOWN THE EVIL EYE.
27,
I would venture to wager that long-lived SAs have more valuable skill sets than first year associates.
In any event, years one through three, and maybe, four, associates do monkey work. The hope is that they will eventually rise above the monkey work. SAs don't have that escape.
The Eye of Sauron is now looking at Skadden staff attorneys.
Whenever I see C&B, I think of Cock and Ball torture.
Maybe that says something about me.
Back to billing!
29,
I agree with the spirit of your statement, but also disagree. Most SAs perform no legal research, no legal drafting, and have no client contact. While entry-level associates don't acquire substantial experience in these areas, they still are at least learning the skills. Yes, reviewing documents is an important skill to have, and SAs will be better at this than associates, but that's usually the limit of their expertise. Is this because SAs are just dumber than associates? Absolutely not. They've just been pigeonholed by the firm, and, as you've noted, have no escape.
Guys in my high school used staffs on matters all the time, it was no big deal
I worked in Covington & Burling's staff attorney program for several years. My staff attorney colleagues at Covington were extremely talented individuals with sharp minds and solid academic credentials. In fact, Covington staff attorneys frequently did associate level work without associate compensation. Some of the comments posted on this blog are absolutely offensive and unjustified.
I call bullshit on 34.
I ain't gonna be lisening to your comments. Your all dumb. You dont no what its like 2 B a disenfranchized women at a major D.C. law firm. I''m gonna sue this web site if I here more negative inviolations of my civil rites.
- Yolanda
34, solid academic credentials, like a C average from GULC?
Dear Liberals On This Board,
Why do some minorities feel like they are so entitled to get things they have no merit for?
1-3 year associates are no different than SAs in experience and compentencies- they do the same work- except one gets paid more than the other- especially in Biglaws. Stop stroking your egos. Everyone knows.
"staff attorneys frequently did associate level work without associate compensation."
Associates reviewing documents doesn't equal that staff attorneys reviewing documents are doing "associate level work."
Look, it's entirely plausible that C&B staff attorneys are "talented individuals with sharp minds and solid academic credentials," but the fact that they weren't hired as associates begs a question that does not need articulating. Sure, some people want to be SA's. More power to them. However, those that don't want to be SAs clearly have some 'splaining to do. Mainly, "What happened?"
Why hasn't Kash weighed in on this? She used to work at Covington.
Kash was a staff attorney at Covington?!
I really wonder who the people are the read and post on this board. Then I met a few kids from the Ivys in New York City. I think the coke habits carried through to law school and the real world. Get over yourselves. Many contract attorneys, let alone staff attorneys, do Associate level work at the research and writing level. Some staff attorneys even take depositions at large firms (though infrequently). I worked as a contract attorney at my old firm before finding a lower-paying position as an Associate at a small firm. As a contract attorney, I did most of the research and writing work (including briefs), and then an Associate would review it, slap their name on the filing, and go to an oral argument (after I prepped them). It was ridiculous, and this all happened because either (1.) I graduated only from a Top 50 law school, and not a Top 14, or (2.) as a partner told me in confidence, my status as a white male made me a less than viable candidate for an Associate position (and, I did not believe him until he showed me photos of the new Associate and Summer Associate classes).
A reference by C&B was that the work was being done by more competitive methods. This is a reference to off shoring doc review to India and elsewhere.
The investment banks are now moving work previously done by 1 & 2 year MBA's offshore.
What makes anyone think that the law firms will not do the same with 1-3 yr legal work.
The bar is allowing the work to be done offshore so what makes anyone think it will start at doc review. Basic research and brief drafting is already being done in India.
Even fewer first years with no experience or skills will be needed.
A reference by C&B was that the work was being done by more competitive methods. This is a reference to off shoring doc review to India and elsewhere.
The investment banks are now moving work previously done by 1 & 2 year MBA's offshore.
What makes anyone think that the law firms will not do the same with 1-3 yr legal work.
The bar is allowing the work to be done offshore so what makes anyone think it will start at doc review. Basic research and brief drafting is already being done in India.
Even fewer first years with no experience or skills will be needed.
Time to start complaining to the ABA and your state bar for allowing un-admitted people to practice law. So why did you bother going to an ABA approved law school and sitting for a bar in the state you wanted to practice in? No more protection of being admitted when thos who require the test are now saying it is not necessary. Time to move to Mumbai and Manila.
If she didn't like being a staff attorney, she should have gotten better grades.
Associates are being paid for their potential, not their actual skills. If they were, they'd be paid like staff attorneys.
If she didn't like being a staff attorney, she should have gotten better grades.
Associates are being paid for their potential, not their actual skills. If they were, they'd be paid like staff attorneys.
If she didn't like being a staff attorney, she should have gotten better grades.
Associates are being paid for their potential, not their actual skills. If they were, they'd be paid like staff attorneys.
As a direct result of the Supreme Court's OT'03 decision declaring retards a protected class, my firm began to hire staff attorneys.
38, why do some illiterates feel like they are so entitled to write things they have no ability to articulate for? Please graduate from high school before commenting again.
"Staff attorneys" are disposable. Otherwise they'd be "associates" and in the partnership track. The truth might be tough to take, but that's it. Like a previous commenter said -- if they didn't want to be a staff attorney they should have gotten better grades.
Wow, 43, it sounds like you're going to be carry that chip on your shoulder for a long time. Or else we're supposed to believe that a partner informed you that you couldn't be hired because of racism.
Nothing you wrote is believable. That's all there is to it.
As a panda, I know something about being an endangered species. Staff attorneys = extinct before year's end.
Remember: frivolous lawsuits make me a saaad panda.
i could use a little face dancing
51- I think if this this year has taught us anything, it's that associates are disposable, too.
Good luck to everyone.
As a recently laid off 3rd year big law litigation associate now desperately looking for work at gov’t agencies and small firms, I can affirmatively state I have no marketable skills. I never interviewed a witness, attended a deposition, wrote a meaningful motion or appeared in court. I am now competing with so-called “toileteers” who spend their first few years in DA offices or small firms and actually know what it is like to be a real lawyer. Big Law/T14 schools are overpriced FRAUDS. Big Law Junior associates are nothing more then billing monkeys that learn nothing and are dumped overboard without a second thought
I, as a Covington staff attorney, analogize my relationship with the firm to my relationship to my husband. They are both abusive, rude, and don't treat me like other employees/spouses are treated, but I don't leave. Why? I don't know. This might be a problem with me, but that does not excuse the bad behavior.
I, as a Covington staff attorney, analogize my relationship with the firm to my relationship to my husband. They are both abusive, rude, and don't treat me like other employees/spouses are treated, but I don't leave. Why? I don't know. This might be a problem with me, but that does not excuse the bad behavior.
The guy in this article's photo is an endangered species for sure...he's hot!
--FlawLESS
"1-3 year associates are no different than SAs in experience and compentencies- they do the same work- except one gets paid more than the other- especially in Biglaws. Stop stroking your egos. Everyone knows."
This is a ridiculous comment and everyone knows it. I attended a top 2 law school and taught at a top 50 law school. There is a HUGE difference between the top 15 law schools and every other one. That's why big firms can hire deeper into the top 15 and must skim the very top of the next 35. Forget most of the others. Sorry.
Most of the staff attorneys/contract attorneys are those who couldn't get a regular associate/partner track position. Because they got mediocre grades in law school and generally don't write very well.
It amazes/amuses me that big law firms will not or can not understand the economic reasons for keeping staff attorneys. Why would a client want to pay $300+ per hour for a junior associate to review docs or provide other basic legal services when they can have a Staff Attorney do it for approximately $200 per hour for the same work? After all you you don't need a law degree from Harvard, Yale, or Chicago to tie your shoes, conduct basic document review, or help with fact development.
Despite comments to the contrary, Staff Attorneys are more stable than Associates--they don't have the problem of up or out. They have institutional knowledge of the firms they work for as well as the cases they work on. They have experience reviewing docs and conducting basic fact development so they are more efficient at it than people fresh out of law school.
BigLaw do you want the work or do you want it done by lower level firms or offshore? Does the presence of lawyers from schools outside of the top 20 outweigh the profit made from attorneys who didn't go to a top 20 school or didn't graduate at the top of her class? If you can't grasp the above, think of it this way: Staff Attorneys provide another price point for your clients that might enable you to get work that you might not ordinarily get.
As for Associates, do you really want to do a lot of document review? Top Associates should welcome having Staff Attorneys doing the "grunt" work so that they can do the more juicy work. A cutting edge law firm (how is that for an oxymoron?) should use its Staff Attorneys as a selling point for its recruits: "Come work for us. We have Staff Attorneys to review docs so you only have to do a minimal amount of grunt work."
The practice of law is changing. . .
It amazes/amuses me that big law firms will not or can not understand the economic reasons for keeping staff attorneys. Why would a client want to pay $300+ per hour for a junior associate to review docs or provide other basic legal services when they can have a Staff Attorney do it for approximately $200 per hour for the same work? After all you you don't need a law degree from Harvard, Yale, or Chicago to tie your shoes, conduct basic document review, or help with fact development.
Despite comments to the contrary, Staff Attorneys are more stable than Associates--they don't have the problem of up or out. They have institutional knowledge of the firms they work for as well as the cases they work on. They have experience reviewing docs and conducting basic fact development so they are more efficient at it than people fresh out of law school.
BigLaw do you want the work or do you want it done by lower level firms or offshore? Does the presence of lawyers from schools outside of the top 20 outweigh the profit made from attorneys who didn't go to a top 20 school or didn't graduate at the top of her class? If you can't grasp the above, think of it this way: Staff Attorneys provide another price point for your clients that might enable you to get work that you might not ordinarily get.
As for Associates, do you really want to do a lot of document review? Top Associates should welcome having Staff Attorneys doing the "grunt" work so that they can do the more juicy work. A cutting edge law firm (how is that for an oxymoron?) should use its Staff Attorneys as a selling point for its recruits: "Come work for us. We have Staff Attorneys to review docs so you only have to do a minimal amount of grunt work."
The practice of law is changing. . .