Nothing a first-year associate with a Restatement (Second) of Contracts cannot replace.

why would they ever want to go to Skadden DC? don't they read the comments here where that office has zombies plaguing the halls or something?

This says a whole lot more about OMM than Skadden....

SkaddenDC closed its doors last year.

You are all idiots.

Have those loses been replaced? Presumably, this is a typo, intended to read "Have those loseRs been replaced?"

"At O'Melveny this could be an excellent opportunity for someone to step up and bring in clients during the downturn. Or perhaps the firm will just poach somebody else. It's not like the music has stopped. "

I feel dumber for having read this "analysis".

This says a whole lot more about OMM than Skadden....

See, if firms wouldn't lower first year associate salaries, it would really make a big difference.

Silly man. He clearly missed all the signs that SkaddenDC is on the verge of imploding. He'll find himself holding a shit filled stocking when all's said and done.

Good firms like Skadden end up poaching rainmakers from other firms.

My firm, Thompson Hine, is too crappy to poach rainmakers from other firms. At the same time, our partners' books of business are too pathetic for anyone to want to poach them to someplace else.

A friend from law school works for SkaddenDC...the asshole in me wishes they'd get laid off so they can get a feel of what real life is like.

If we e-mail the managing partners at Thompson Hine and tell them how completely shitty their firm is, any chance you'll quit complaining about it already?

I definitely agree that Thompson Hine is complete TTT... hell, I wouldn't even count them as "BigLaw" worth commenting about on this site.

I find I'm generally ok with the firm-bashing trolls. It gets old when they hijack a thread to do nothing but bash their firms, but I find it mildly amusing to picture partners reading posts like that.

So, I say keep up the good work (just do us a favor and exercise some restraint)!

-Not a bitter associate, but enjoys watching the ones that are

Skadden prefers the lawyers it sires,
And rarely does lateral hires.
But Beisner really holds sway
And, in the words of Michael Ray,
The ship now be sinkin' at O'Melveney & Myers.

15 -- nice poem, but skadden rarely does lateral hires?? are you out of your freakin mind?? what % of partners at skadden do you think started as first year associates? like 2%. skaddendc is not cravath or williams&connolly!

I just took an exam on contracts, and I'm pretty sure that O'Melveny could have a claim against those defecting partners via the doctrine of promissory estoppel. O'Melveny presumably relied on those partners' book of business and annual profits to the firm. I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think they could make a pretty strong argument under Restatement 90.

15: That is not a limerick. I suppose it's "above the limerick" in that it has too many syllables and a choppy rhythm.

@11 Why don't you spice up your Thompson Hine rants with a little office gossip? If there's no rainmaking, which partners or practice group leaders are banging which associates? And what's going on with those pathetic Business Development and Practice Group Directors?

People from my high school used to get poached by Skadden all the time. It was no big deal.

Let's keep our eye on the ball folks: big news from two world class firms. Who the hell cares about some trash face TTT shop whose own associates try to bash here even though the post has nothing to do with them or their pathetic livelihood.

Thompson Hine? That is some weak sauce.

I am in-house counsel that regularly sends matters to Thompson Hine. Based on the posted comments about Thompson Hine, it is clear that they do not treat their employees well. My company will no longer send matters their way. Thank you for letting us know.

Does Latham have a DC office?

22 needs a life more than anyone on Earth.

Guys in my high school used to make it rain all the time. It was no big deal.

19,

I would very much enjoy that, but I don't think it is a good idea. Based on what gossip I know and post, I could end up identifying myself and then end up on the breadline.

That being said, I think there are some fun things I can add in to spice things up that won't identify myself. Let me think on it some and I'll come back with something fresh ;-)

19,

I would very much enjoy that, but I don't think it is a good idea. Based on what gossip I know and post, I could end up identifying myself and then end up on the breadline.

That being said, I think there are some fun things I can add in to spice things up that won't identify myself. Let me think on it some and I'll come back with something fresh ;-)

After the OMM IP litigators' jump to K&E, this is a pretty bad sign.

A good reason for youngsters just out of law school to consider another calling.

Second 6. Yeah, there's just John Beisners at every corner.

22, you out did us all in pitifulness.

22, you out did us all in pitifulness.

Skadden in in DC is doing very well. The office is bigger than most firms in general. Sounds like there's some jealousy out and about...

Skadden in in DC is doing very well. The office is bigger than most firms in general. Sounds like there's some jealousy out and about...

Contraction, traction, what’s your faction?
AB is breaking OMM and losing its clients.
Contraction, traction, what’s your faction?
Hope you’re hooking up with Beisner, Miller and Harburg.

Contraction, traction, what’s your faction?
AB is breaking OMM and losing its clients.
Contraction, traction, what’s your faction?
Hope you’re hooking up with Beisner, Miller and Harburg.

Where does OMM stand in LA?

37 - In what way? Prestige? GDC, LW, OMM, PHJW. Little has changed, except that LW is firmly #2 (hehe) now.

17 = 1L. Section 90 is of no significants.

39 - that's "significance" genius.

38: concur with your analysis but you're missing a few

Munger
Irell (maybe)
GDC
Skadden
LW
OMM

then the rest:
Mofo/Kirkland/Orrick/etc. etc. etc.

Nitwits who write things like "this could be an excellent opportunity for someone to step up and bring in clients during the downturn" have no idea what it takes to make rain. It's not just buying lap dances and drinks; it's getting a reputation as a great lawyer and then hustling on weekends, nights at the symphony and directorships, and 6 a.m. downtown breakfasts - all while the service partners work like so many Chrysler UAW workers.

This news is a sure sign that Skadden has the money to buy the best free agents in litigation; and, that OMM doesn't - likely because it's paying far too much to the service partners; partners who will now turn on the income partners and associates.

42: You are right about not being able to just replace Beisner, but this isn't about money; it's about respect and class. The current management has been trying to have a pissing contest with John, in order to stamp out his incessent need to be human rather than bottom line driven. John's too nice a guy to play, so he's taking his toys and walking. The scary part is that I don't think OMM managment realized -- at least, not until John said "later" -- that they needed him WAY more than he needed them.

Life boat, anyone?

43: Been there, done that; know what you mean. There was a Pearl Jam song that I played as I drove home that night - "Rearview Mirror". The lyrics say it all.

Where is Michael Ray Richardson when you need him? I'll do my best to fill in:

The ship be sinking.

It wasn't all about money, or being "human" or Beisner's loss to AB in the election for firm Chair (the last of these is truly inexplicable). Beisner and many others saw that AB--and the other "leaders" of the firm--were misguided in focusing so single mindedly on private equity, had been wildly optimistic about the ability to leverage a mediocre private equity practice into becoming "the firm to see" for public M&A, and had allowed the ghouls who came into the firm in a merger a few years ago--and were authorized by AB to take over the NY office--to completely poison that office for everyone but them and their cronies. All of these things and more ended up driving out very good lawyers and crucial practice groups (including bankruptcy) over time, only the latest of which are the IP Litigators, and now Beisner, ultimately driving down profits as well as the fortunes of the NY office, an office once viewed by the firm as its "future". Well done, AB.

17 - Sorry but you apparently aren't going to get a very good grade in Contracts. Perhaps a legal career is not for you especially in this economy.

46 - Is OMM ever going to take the NY office back? Seems like they ceded control and it's going gangbusters towards oblivion.

48 - There's no one left from OMM in NY to "take back" the office. Pretty much every person that was a partner in OMM NY pre-merger has left for greener pastures, and those four or five who haven't (out of some 40+ at the time of the merger) probably wish they had.

Life boats? Doubt it. But in addition to the considerable rainmaking, OMM's DC office definitely had a reputation for being a comparatively humane place to work (as these things go), and Beisner was supposed to be a pretty big part of that.

46: Interesting thoughts, most of them are right, but this has to do with more than just the overleveraging into private equity. John no doubt knew about that when he ran for chair and he still ran. Obviously he was disaffected before he ran, otherwise he wouldn't have run. But the loss, and the strutting that followed, definitely played a big, big role in this.

John,

Please take me with you! I'd much rather work for you than remain at OMM.

Person Still on the Titanic

52: Sounds like you actually saw AB do some strutting after his election. But frankly AB has been strutting around the firm for years thinking he's god's gift to OMM while in fact it's been crumbling all around him. But, agree with you that Beisner's reasons for leaving are likely many, and he and many, many others at the firm have seen the crumbling for a long, long time.

Recently, it has been pretty hard to decipher when someone is thoughtfully criticizing a firm/lawyer or they just have sour grapes because they were recently fired/laid off? A year or two ago, I'd take negative comments seriously. Now, you really have to take everything with many grains of salt-of course, I should have been doing that all along as this is a legal tabloid and nothing more.

Recently, it has been pretty hard to decipher when someone is thoughtfully criticizing a firm/lawyer or they just have sour grapes because they were recently fired/laid off? A year or two ago, I'd take negative comments seriously. Now, you really have to take everything with many grains of salt-of course, I should have been doing that all along as this is a legal tabloid and nothing more.

54,55: Have the whole shaker if you like. Maybe this will be easier to decipher: OMM had frozen or declining profits for 2 years (not counting this year's numbers), went from roughly 240 attorneys in NY to about half that in 4 years, and just lost their IP litigation group and a big rainmaker and head of the DC office--amongst other recent bad news.

Yep, the bottom line is that Beisner's taking a BIG book of business with him and OMM is going to miss the next Vioxx and others until they can find somebody to fill this rather big void. It can be done but it won't be easy and it will take time and significant resources. Guaranteed money is what killed the firm in NYC.

OMM has lost some marquee names in the last year or two and haven't really replaced them: Holscher; Cendali; and now Beisner.

There are folks in the DC office who have the horsepower to do what Beisner is doing but have nowhere near their crediblity with the chamber crowd and aren't exactly "people persons" - what distinguishes a really really good lawyer from a rainmaker who can keep people working.

OMM can try to put a happy face on a guy like John Beisner leaving but it's not a good development for an office that has some busy practice groups (e.g., ERISA) and others that are a bit off. This is in no way the end of OMM - that's absurd - but there's going to be some more blood on the floor when this all shakes out.

For instance, there's at least one partner sitting alone in a southwestern-motifed office who is wondering why the bus left without him and how he'll reinvent himself. If anybody sees a listing for class action service partner, must be willing to work at least from from 10-3 weekdays, and a salary at $1M+ please let him know.

There are also numerous associates and counsel who were working almost entirely on Beisner-generated work. Beisner will probably take some folks with him but the whole team can't go since there is probably some slack capacity at Skadden.

You reap what you sow.

Well I hope none of the female OMM associates decide to move to Skadden DC. I'm sure Skadden would prefer it that way anyway.

57: That sort of makes him like Wal-Mart , I guess. Karma sure has a way of making things work out. (Incidentally, a situation that Beisner deftly smoothed over - something the current crew could never have pulled off since they lack Beisner's credibility).

The problem? O’Melveney has no transactional practice and its litigation practice is no great shakes. The litigators are headed by Brad Butwin, known around the firm as Great Hair, No Brains. No practice accomplishments there. His securities people sit in the back row representing third rung clients and watching real lawyers work. The other head is Bob Siegel, nice guy whose labor practice evaporated. They symbolize what remains of O’Melveny’s once strong litigation group. Utterly undistinguished. Some “legends in their own minds,” but no one credible outside the firm.

Almost all the “stars” are gone. Erisa king Bob Eccles retires later this year, and appellate genius Walter Dellinger moves on soon. That about does it.

If you hire O’Melveny, ask for a big discount ‘cuz what youre getting is Filene’s Basement litigators. (Didn’t Filene’s go bankrupt?)

Only if the definition of “star” means “greybeard.” The rising generation of O’Melveny litigation partners is among the best in the country. Ken Wainstein is clearly a star -- he was the most coveted white-collar lawyer to come out of the Bush Administration, having been U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the top White House homeland security adviser. Steve Bunnell is a star, having led the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office fraud section for years. How about Ian Simmons, one of the country’s top antitrust litigators? Or Sri Srinivasan, a former Supreme court clerk who was one of the most highly regarded assistants to the Solicitor General of the United States? Maybe Jeremy Maltby? He’s another former Supreme Court clerk who just finished pulling off a complete defense verdict before a Montana jury. Gary Tell also has to be on anyone’s list of ERISA litigation stars. And the fact that OMM had five spots on the Daily Journal’s Top Women Litigators list just this week suggests no shortage of stars. The fact is that firms around the country are being led by a new generation of partners -- no one thinks Skadden is headed down simply because their chairman is in his mid-40s -- and the departure of his predecessor didn’t suggest that they were losing their “stars.”

61 -- All excellent litigators I'm sure, but I don't think the names you rattled off really refute anything in 60's summation of the state of the litigation department in general, or the leaders of it in particular.

I for one was thrilled to learn that the DC partnership has thought long and hard and ultimately decided not to abandon ship. Very comforting, thanks.

63:

Are you saying the OMM DC partners ACTUALLY voted whether to stay or try to go with Beisner? That's worthy of a post in itself. Please tell me they put that in a memo--and that you can share it with ATL without getting canned.

58 - you clearly don't know what you are talking about -women are totally welcome at skaddendc as long as they are attractive and don't expect to be promoted

A lot of people have made some good points about the sorry state of OMM but the most important point of all is that John Beisner is the best lawyer and most decent person in the firm. John is a rainmaker not only because he is a great lawyer but because he is down to earth, honest, sincere, caring and incredibly hard working. You can't fake that. The clients know it and that is why they are going with him.

It is disgraceful that the partners are letting him walk out of the door today after all he has done for the firm and the DC office. Yes, the DC office once was a great place to work because of John. Many people throughout the firm owe their careers to John. The partners had their chance to do the right thing when John ran for Chair. The firm would be in a much better position if he had won. Instead, AB's "management" team continues to drive the firm into the ground. You would be surprised how much these people are paid and how much they continue to scam the firm for their big salaries - including AB's former secretary - while hard working staff are let go. And the DC office now is a terrible place to work with an incompetent management team - Managing Partner, Administrative Partner, Office Administrator and HR Manager - one worse than the other. (And one woman partner who bullies management to get what she wants even though she isn't a very good lawyer nor is she a rainmaker.)

You can't blame John for leaving. He tried to get the firm back on the right track and was treated horribly for his efforts. Good luck, John. It will never be the same. Take me with you. Please.

66: I heartily concur with virtually all of the criticism leveled in these comments at AB, the "management" team (your use of quotes is truly appropriate) and the NY office "leadership". Few people were more fed up with the NY office partners, the firm's management and AB than I was when I left. Yet my disdain for them never affected my admiration for Beisner--he was truly a decent human being, a terrific lawyer and an inspiring leader. It's a shame that the partnership put so much power in AB's hands for so long that his hand-picked office leaders and hand-picked firm management hesitated to bite the hand that fed them so well (at the expense of the rest of the firm), and someone as well-liked and important to the firm as Beisner was unable to bring about the change the firm sorely needs. Best of luck to John, and to you.

What does the "management team" even have to do with anything here? They are not the reason he's leaving. Their just handling another departure. Grind your exes if you must, but this has nothing to do with HR, Administrators, etc (you're actually bringing people's secretaries into this?) Beisner left for his own professional development. Good luck to him, OMM will move on and so should you.

What does the "management team" even have to do with anything here? They are not the reason he's leaving. Their just handling another departure. Grind your exes if you must, but this has nothing to do with HR, Administrators, etc (you're actually bringing people's secretaries into this?) Beisner left for his own professional development. Good luck to him, OMM will move on and so should you.

68/69: You think he left because he was tired of walking in the shadows of others? Really?

As anyone at OMM already knows, people making posts such as 61/68/69 as in firm administration trying to engage in damage control. Yes, it has devolved to that point. This is just one of a series of recent business generating partners to leave, and could be the tipping point where the departures accelerate. They know this. Hence, the efforts to control the flow of information. A perfect example of this is AB's voicemail from earlier this week, where he is clearly reading from a script, and when he has to go off script to comment on John's departure it results in much stammering and nervousness. Everyone knows this isn't a positive development, and even AB can't hide it.

69, nice attempt at misdirection. The real point of the earlier criticism of OMM's management is not that administrative staff are terrible (though one commenter's reference to the cronyism that characterizes AB's "leadership" leading to unfair favoritism to his secretary and a few administrative staff does not surprise me), but that the vision and leadership of the firm's office leaders and of the policy committee that ultimately decided the outcome of the fractured election in which AB triumphed (without getting anywhere close to a majority vote of the partners) leave a lot to be desired, and have over many years deeply hurt the firm and its propsects for the future. And as a result Beisner and many others who have seen this have tried to do what they could to change things and/or left the firm.

What separates a guy like John Beisner from the others in this profession is that Beisner is a great teacher and always pleasant to interact with regardless of whether he is under the gun or actually has a bit of of free time. His mood and demeanor was communicable and made OMM a pleasant place to be. The current leadership is also infectious in a communicable sort of way - just not a good way. They're a group of excellent lawyers who inspire no confidence from their subordinates because they are duplicitous and self-serving individuals.

There's a handful of folks still in that office that are Beisneresque in the way they interact with their co-workers - the problem is they're are at least 5 years from ascending to meaningful leadership positions and the folks on deck are just more of the same.

It's a rebuilding year at OMM-DC.

I would think the most frightening prospect for OMM is the one that it will not be involved - or have only bit roles - in the next few big product or mass tort litigations that hit. Whatever those may be. Once they're off that gravy train it's a little harder to get back on because rolodexes change pretty quickly and people are fickle. Since there's no transactional practice - or none to speak of - for OMM to leverage into potential litigation engagements it must necessarily rely on the perception that they've got some heavy hitters in order to get that initial call when a drug is recalled or their is industry wide exposure on some product. That reputation has been damaged - the question is just how much. There's clearly differing views as to just how much sway a guy like Beisner has - only time will tell. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

74 is right. O’Melveny should be concerned that its suddenly irrelevant in complex lit, class actions and mass torts.

With flourish, they announced that Richard Goetz would solve that problem by taking Beisner’s place. But in 25 years of practice, no client has ever asked Goetz to argue a product liability appeal. No client has ever asked Goetz to argue a class action appeal. No client has asked Goetz to argue a mass tort at the JPML. He’s never been a lead negotiator in a mass tort settlement. He’s never been before a jury to try a product liability case. And he’s argued maybe two or three class motions tops.

Is this guy the complete package or what? And he’s the best OMelveny has to offer!

Guess firm is betting that clients will pay top dollar for on the job training.

Goetz is "the best O'Melveny has to offer" because they always consider the "best" person for the job to be the one that is the most sycophantic to, protective of and in line with AB and the current cabal in control of the firm. That's how they now select the managing partners of offices, hiring partners, members of the policy committee and so on throughout the management structure of the firm. John was merely there as a legacy and only by virture of his importance to the firm - and that's why AB ultimately wanted to force him out, as it challenged his stranglehold on the firm. This attitude also infected the selection of partners, as the most recent several classes of folks that made partner were not picked on the basis of being good lawyers, having actual or potential business development potential or any other criteria which one would think relevant to that determination. Rather, it's based on the ability to perform adequately as a supplicant and wedge oneself into the pocket of a powerful enough partner within the good graces of AB and his cronies. It is coming back to bite them, big time. It's truly an awful time to be at OMM, because morale is abysmal and either the firm will continue to crumble or finally there will be a sufficient revolt among the partners to remove AB from his "leadership" position. You cannot simultaneously pursue a failing business plan, install sympathetic allies in leadership positions so you can collectively loot the firm for your own profit and run a successful business at the same time.

I’m at another law firm, so laughing out loud at this OMM discussion. 75 and 76 are right. What is most amusing is OMMs “dramatic” response of naming Rich Goetz to replace Beisner. At a drug lit conference last week, people were cracking up about that. Rich who?

Nobody ever heard of him. The few who have think he's a paper pushing service partner. No big trial or appeal victories I know of.

OMM bragged about the firm being nominated for products practice of the year by Chambers. But they were nominated because of Beisner’s many big victories in Vioxx, not because of anything Goetz did. With Beisner gone, probably false advertising for OMM to be talking about that. I worked on Vioxx, and I don’t recall ever hearing about Goetz.

I feel sorry for the few OMM products people I know who are fairly decent. With Goetz in charge, OMM is hanging a “closed for business” sign on this practice. OMM managers must be real dumbasses if they thought this was a good strategy.

The biggest loss (aside from the work that will be gone) will be the overall feeling in the office. Beisner brought out the absolute best in people. The same can't be said about those currently running things.

To be completely fair, John's a really nice guy , but he's somewhat machiavellian about not bringing along his subbordinates. He frequently sends along memos and email without giving any attribution to the associates/counsel/junior partners who wrote them (or even copying those peopl on the cover email). Case in point: JDM's a '95 grad who's been with him for nearly a decade. If Beisner left her behind, what would she do? Indeed, the fact that there's no one left who can really step into his shoes is a testimate to what a bad stweart he is.

I'm decidedly not managemnet and I'm really pissed they let him walk out and petrified about the future. But let's not pretend that John's kind territorialism isn't part of the reason this is such bad news for OMM.

Wow, that is really a mess of typos. All I can say is that I was channeling my inner JDM.

--79

I really don't understand. What more has to happen before this firm puts someone new/a new team in charge? Has AB been that thoroughly successful in eliminating everyone from positions of power other than his handpicked and overpaid laterals and other loyal cronies? Is there anyone out there who honestly thinks that somehow this latest debacle is a result of Beisner's disloyalty, and not the result of years of justified frustration with where the firm is headed, the poor decisions it has made, its failed strategies and its inept and corrupt leadership? If the firm doesn't do anything to get rid of the current leadership, then the partnership deserves the decline in civility, morale, prestige and profitability they have experienced and are going to continue to experience.

81: Agreed. It's like the end of Episode III.

The only silver lining on this dark cloud is that JDM will be somebody else's problem henceforth. Some times you need to burn the village to save it.

AB is channeling his inner W.

There have been several reports that a group of people were seen dancing around the 11th floor singing "ding dong the witch is dead!"

Apropos of 83 and 85: You have to wonder whether the only thing worse than staying behind is going to Skadden, knowing that's you only path to work. Forever.