Fizzurst

Attention DLA Piper Associates:

Please contact me immediately so that we may ESTOP DLA Piper from breaking their PROMISes to you.

-Busy Section 90 Plaintiff's Atty

Almost first...for only the 2nd time.

DLA-Piper is to BIGLAW

as

_________ is to Major League Baseball.

My vote would be the 1962 Mets.

This salary reduction is an idea whose time has come. Watch salary cuts spread like wildfire among major firms. Why? Because it is still an employer's market and the vast majority of associates have no lateral opportunities, so why pay them more?

Deal with it, suckers.

Given that I have $250,000 in debt and no job, I would prefer to dance with Face Dancers in the pale moonlight of Arrakis instead of facing pay cuts.

Eighth.

If your salary was already frozen and now it is being reduced, that could be a 30-40K hit from what you were expecting for 2009.

Wow brutal: Anyone have any info about the new payscale?

Feyd-Rautha is behind this -- I can smell his Harkonnen stench.

# 7 - Without a stillsuit? Are you mad?

There is no way any firm will be on the 160k payscale within 3 months.

12

I think that's kind of the point, dude.

I think that firms of this quality and reputation are as far as the reductions go. Things are picking up in many areas and many places are in a salary freeze situation already. There are jobs out there in many specialties and even for generalists, if you're good. DLA and BM might be able to hold on to people with no other options, but I don't think that good firms are as sure of that.

No offense to DLA and BM. I'm just saying that my large, national non-NY based firm is getting pretty busy given that somewhere between 10 - 20% of associates have already been publicly or steathily laid off. The so called "pent-up demand" is starting to be realized, and many in my shop are back to the pace of a year ago. If they give us all a salary cut, too, on top of shitty bonuses and a salary freeze, I am personally going to consider that the last straw and will go into major work slowdown mode while I look for a different job.

Just thanking Elie for taking my "include the Vault rank" suggestion.

/s/ the guy who requested this way back when . . .

On another note, can anyone offer a guess to how many firms must do this before we see the max exodus to 145? 5 firms? 8 firms? If i10 firms adopt this policy, I assume at least 70 other firms will do the same.

DLA needs an ass lobster mascot.

15:

Agreed, though I'm at a NY based firm.

I have heard that you may request up to 50% of last years salary amount in the spice melange. Also, there is a special stipend if your name is a killing word...MWAAAAH DEEEEB!

15:

Agreed, though I'm at a NY based firm.

15:

Agreed, though I'm at a NY based firm.

If your salary was already frozen and now it is being reduced, that could be a 30-40K hit from what you were expecting for 2009.

----------------------------

It is more than that -- the drop is about 65K for an upper tier associate. I speak from experience, unfortunately. A loss of 65K means a lot when you have a kid, student loans, and other unemployed family members. And before you flame, I don't live in a highrise in Manhattan and we have one car that has seen better days.

#10:

Best guess on the new scale:
$145,000
$155,000
$170,000
$190,000
$210,000
$225,000
$240,000
$250,000

Which would be down from the following:
$160,000
$170,000
$185,000
$210,000
$230,000
$250,000
$270,000
$280,000

22,

you probably shouldn't have had kids, a wife, a car, or lived in Manhattan. Noob.

J/k...$65k is a lot of freakin' money by most (rational) people's standards...so yea that sucks. Hope this doesn't spread. Keep it locked fam...no more salary cuts!

23 - you are way off. I'm a (relatively busy) 7th year transactional attorney, now at $200k...

This fucking sucks.

This is further evidence that DLA is in serious fnancial trouble. Partner and of Counsel comp has been cut more than the % for associates. And lest we forget, all non-equity partners were required to ante up $100K, and accept smaller draws, just to stay on. They will never see that cash.

Firms like DLA, K&L Gates ( who just lost Microsoft as a major client) and others that mushroomed earlier this decade are about to learn that constantly opening new offices in major business centers, merging with local firms and seeking to be the biggest in town aren't guarantees of success. Quality not quantity is what the market demands.

Anyone willing to give odds on DLA's ability to survive until December? I say 2:1 against.

If no one is getting fired, work is drying up, and hourly rates aren't being slashed, does the lower salary also mean a lower work load?

If so, not the end of the world. I mean you'll more than make for the lost earnings by not having to file for divorce in a couple of years.

DLgAy

*Yawn*...so what, more cuts... wake me up when SkaddenDC makes salary cuts or lays off people.

...this is the only blog where there are still douchebag asshats that feel the need to scream "first" or some permutation thereof when posting. Dudes, that was like funny in circa 1995. 2009, not funny, just loserish.

DLgAy

No offense, but a $65k cut doesn't sound so bad, when the alternative that I got was being laid-off. How does a $150k cut sound to you. And yes, I got two kids and a boat-load of loans. I'm guessing you'll still be pulling in around $100k plus, and they're aren't too many firms out there hiring associates, without a book of business, for that kind of money right now.

25 - are you at DLA?

25 - are you at DLA?

22 - Amen brother. This blows.

Didn't you just report on D&L Gates a day or two ago?

I'd rather try to harm the Lady Jessica and her young son Paul Atreides whilst they are being guarded by Duncan Idaho than come between a biglaw associate and their salary!

Elie:
Newsflash: DLA Piper is not more prestigious than Baker & McKenzie, and this is coming from a guy who has no respect for B&M.

DLA is TTT

DLA : "dumb loser associates". What a ghetto ass firm.

DLAssLobster

DLA : "dumb loser associates". What a ghetto ass firm.

33/34 - yup. Either that or Thompson Hines.

At least there weren't layoffs at DLA Piper.

Thompson Hine did paycuts for everyone AND layoffs.

Incidentally, although I clearly hate my firm, let me say that the people that got laid off have it way worse than the paycut people.

Yes, I hate TTThompson Hine for how it treated me with the huge paycut, but I also hate them for the wide swath of announced layoffs.

I especially hate them for the ongoing stealth layoffs. Those KILL careers by painting an economic problem as a problem with the attorney. I guess my firm figures no one will figure out they suck this way.

With losers like Sharen Schwartz-Neuhardt (who got CRUSHED running for congress as a democrat in the biggest wave election for Democrats in our lifetime), I guess it isn't surprising how shitty the firm is.

Lots of law firms are filled with whores for partners.

Thompson Hine made a Hooker their managing partner (David Hooker).

Look, half of the posters here are just stupid juvenile assholes. Can we stick to comments with actual substance? All others, seriously, get a life.

I want to know the answer to what is perhaps an obvious question: Does anyone ever get to count on having an income? I was laid off from DLA, obviously I couldn't count on my job. I guess if I were there I couldn't even count on a specific salary. That's just bullshit. How are people supposed to ever make any sort of life/financial decisions?

31 -- There will always be ppl worse off. At least you have your house... kids... parents... your health.... yadda yada.

The point is that wiping out $65k is a big nut to swallow. Yes, not at big as $100k or $150k, but still friggin big.

42, you douche, DLA laid people off not that long ago, quite a few actually. and never, EVER bitch about still being employed to a bunch of people who would kill for your job, as sucky as you think it is. cocksmoke.

Based on 25's comment, here is the payscale. Please confirm:

$145,000
$150,000
$160,000
$170,000
$180,000
$190,000
$200,000
$210,000

Luis Zaccareli wouldn't even wipe his ass with DLA.

I was a stealth layoff from DLA last summer. The only blessing was that it was so far in advance of the later onslaught of layoffs that I safely landed somewhere else before the butchering began.

The fact that the partners are taking a cut, while REQUIRED and long over due on the part of the big firms, is of little comfort to associates. The partners earn millions, the associate are still young and drowning in student loan debt. The "three of us" in this memo are the two U.S. and one England-based chairmen of the firm, and I have no sympathy that they've had to shave a million or two off their likely $10+ million earnings a year. Just saying.

DLA : "dumb loser associates". What a ghetto ass firm.

DLA : "dumb loser associates". What a ghetto ass firm.

I was a stealth layoff from DLA last summer. The only blessing was that it was so far in advance of the later onslaught of layoffs that I safely landed somewhere else before the butchering began.

The fact that the partners are taking a cut, while REQUIRED and long over due on the part of the big firms, is of little comfort to associates. The partners earn millions, the associate are still young and drowning in student loan debt. The "three of us" in this memo are the two U.S. and one England-based chairmen of the firm, and I have no sympathy that they've had to shave a million or two off their likely $10+ million earnings a year. Just saying.

I was a stealth layoff from DLA last summer. The only blessing was that it was so far in advance of the later onslaught of layoffs that I safely landed somewhere else before the butchering began.

The fact that the partners are taking a cut, while REQUIRED and long over due on the part of the big firms, is of little comfort to associates. The partners earn millions, the associate are still young and drowning in student loan debt. The "three of us" in this memo are the two U.S. and one England-based chairmen of the firm, and I have no sympathy that they've had to shave a million or two off their likely $10+ million earnings a year. Just saying.

23 is way off - 25 is about right.

45,

As I said, mostly I'm not complaining about still being employed. I'm complaining about how my firm treats EVERYONE. Like I said, the fact of the layoffs is a much bigger indicator of what assholes the partners at my firm are.

If you prefer an analogy, I got molested, but the people who got laid off got raped.

Since I'm complaining about my firm, I'm complaining about it all. From the paycuts (4th degree felony) to the layoffs (1st degree felony).

Hopefully that clarifies that I freely recognize that the laid off got much worse treatment than I personally did.

I'm really not interested in fighting amongst fellow associates over who got screwed worse (notice how I always mention the layoffs when I rant about my firm?); I'm just looking to air complaints about the assholes that did it to us.

Peace,

42

DLA : "dumb loser associates". What a ghetto ass firm.

Given $250,000 in debt and no job, I'd rather commit suicide as a Sardaukar legionary after the fall of the Corrino dynasty rather than adjust to the new reality of associate pay cuts.

23 is way off - 25 is about right.

There are already 8 in the V100 (all around 10% cuts).

43 DLA Piper
44 Baker & McKenzie
64 Greenberg Traurig, LLP
71 Nixon Peabody LLP
76 Chadbourne & Parke LLP
85 McGuireWoods LLP
97 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP
98 Seyfarth Shaw

DLA : "dumb loser associates". What a ghetto ass firm.

Yeah, this is not good news for K&L Gates associates. Look for substantial salary cuts in the next quarter.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the REAL reason why salaries are being cut. Think about it. There are probably some 4th year associates last year and this year who will make more than some of the new partners. Near riots from those partners have developed the mandatory response from firm management that no associate should be making more than a partner. That's what is really hapenning.

42 - there were absolutely layoffs at DLA. I and many of my friends were among them.

By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Warvan, DLA associates shall be avenged!

61

OR there simply isn't enough business anywhere, period.

62,

Yeah, my bad on that. When it comes to what went down at DLA Piper, I was incorrect. Sounds like the deal you guys got was about as shitty as what we got at Thompson Hine.

On the plus side, at least DLA Piper is a more prestigious firm than TH.

Mea culpa,

42

61

OR there simply isn't enough business anywhere, period.

15-WRONG> See 6 for a more realistic assessment of the current legal market. And take those rose-colored glasses off before people accuse you of being downright delusional. It's a business, and the owners are holding all the chips these days.

It wasn't a 10% paycut across the board.

DLA cut salaries by 20% for some first years! First year salaries in "non-major" offices dropped from $160k to $130k. (And that doesn't even count negative adjustments for low billable hour paces).

It wasn't a 10% paycut across the board.

DLA cut salaries by 20% for some first years! First year salaries in "non-major" offices dropped from $160k to $130k. (And that doesn't even count negative adjustments for low billable hour paces).

K&L GaTTTes will probably just wait for Reed Smith to reduce and then follow suit...isn't that always its MO?

I agree with 67.

Though, I would add one point that if partners and firms don't fix their broken business model then they are still an endangered species and these measures are only prolonging the death of the highly leveraged firm model.

However, until that long overdue change happens, you better believe that the partners will see to it that everyone else marches to the gallows before they do.

I agree with 67.

Though, I would add one point that if partners and firms don't fix their broken business model then they are still an endangered species and these measures are only prolonging the death of the highly leveraged firm model.

However, until that long overdue change happens, you better believe that the partners will see to it that everyone else marches to the gallows before they do.

I agree with 67.

Though, I would add one point that if partners and firms don't fix their broken business model then they are still an endangered species and these measures are only prolonging the death of the highly leveraged firm model.

However, until that long overdue change happens, you better believe that the partners will see to it that everyone else marches to the gallows before they do.

Don't worry guys, your take-home pay will go up once Obama raises taxes on law firm partners and associates making over $200k or $125k each when married. That's how tax hikes work, I think.

Yes We Can!

In Kahless' name, you human lawyers have no idea of suffering! In the Klingon Empire, when we terminate an associate, we TERMINATE an associate!

Conspicuously absent from the Chairs' memo is any notion that hourly rates will be reduced across the board --- man up boys.

Amen - the truly bizarre fact from the last 15 years is the degree to which hourly rates have increased - far faster than the CPI and far faster than the revenues or proifts of the clients of the AmLaw100. A 30-35% reduction across the board would bring those rates back in line with reality. When combined with the incredible amount of excessive time charges and work hoarding it's a multi billion dollar souffle that's collapsing ..........thud....splat....drip...gone

Here's one for you math fans: if your salary is reduced by 15,000 - will they "recapture" your excess earnings from the first 5/6 months of the year by paying you 30,000 less for the last 5/6 months so that at year end your W-2 earnings are 145,000???? Ie., will you be paid at a $130,000 rate for the second half of the year???? Remember you read it here first

78 - unpossible. they couldn't do that, could they?

78 you are an idiot.

Associates should not dismay. Capitalism is alive and well. From carnage comes opportunity. You are facing opportunity -- you just don't see it yet.

67, 15 here. I hear you, but I just don't see it. No offense, but, again, not all firms are not DLA Piper and Baker and fucking McKenzie. I don't get caught up in the prestige game, but it's not harsh to say that these are not top shops. I think that it is honorable that they tried to follow the salary increases and inevitable that they have had to roll them back.

I'm an early naughts grad, my rate is $545 / hour and I run deals. I'm on a pace of about 2300 hours for this year. That's total revenue of around $1.2MM. There aren't that many others at my shop who can do what I do. We already had a salary freeze and shitty bonuses. My bonus last year was a third of what is has been in recent years for more hours than in those years. If I had seen the upside the partners have seen in the past five years, maybe I would feel differently. But I'm not slapping my own dick over the thought of less than $300k a year for the sacrifices I have made to make the partners an additional three times that. My comp to revenue ratio is now the lowest its ever been in my career. If my firm wants to risk giving up the revenue I generate up in order to nickel and dime me by $20-$40k AGAIN, I'm out. I'm no superstar, and probably won't make partner, but I contribute to the bottom line. I'd be happy to call their bluff, even if I would risk having to sit on the sidelines for 6 months. Since I am not a spendthrift, I have no debt and a few hundred thousand in the bank. At my firm, I would estimate that 10-20% of my colleagues are in the same position as me.

I've been wrong before (on rare occasions!), so I guess only the next six months will tell if I am wrong about this, too. If so, I think that I will have the balls to bail. Biglaw isn't worth it to associates if the money train stops, unless they have no alternatives.

Too bad they decided to do this after they laid me off.

- 1st Year Laid Off from DLA

The ship be sinking...

So very TTT.

@82

Why wait? Talk to a few buddies on the dl and start making plans to jump ship now. Rainmaking doesn't just happen when you make partner you know.

If 46 is accurate then that's about 25% reduction down the line. Why would first year salaries be cut less than more experienced (and theoretically more valuable) associates.

Third years I know are at $153k.

- DLA Piper associate.

Look. Nobody wanted to raise first years to $160K. It's just like the housing market. I'm thinking that before it's over, first years will be back in the $120-130K range in top markets, and 15% less than that in others.

Mystal,

You wrote that you reported "DLA's decision to decrease partner compensation."

What does this mean? Do you not understand what a partnership is? If profits go down, partner comp goes down -- they're one and the same. There was no "decision." If you're talking about draws, say so. If you're too stupid to even understand my complaint, get off this f--ing blog.

82: If you don't have portable business, which of course you don't, you're being an idiot. Nobody wants to hear how much "you're" making the partners. You freely admit you're no superstar and I have little doubt you couldn't find precipitation in a rain forest. Suck it up and shut it up.

DLA,
Good luck with recruiting. It'll be time to pay the Piper.

89, they won't have enough associates at that pay scale. For now, yes, but not when demand picks up and lawyers have some other options. You can't give people lousy work, demand they work ridiculous hours, and not pay them CONSIDERABLY more than they can make elsewhere. I'm not saying nobody would go in to biglaw any more, but at those salary levels you'd see a considerable talent drain. Maybe not this year, but before too long.

DLA is a joke. The leadership at this firm has seriously flawed vision. Built a house of cards around the world which is crumbling fast while everyone else pays the piper. Good-bye DLA.

golden handcuffs. just leave. go somewhere that respects you.

how does this affect summer associates there? has a letter or communication been sent to them?

Associates were cut either 10% or 20%. So, the third years who were cut 20% are at $136,000 down from $170,000. DLA is actually going to pay some third years LESS than it pays some first years.

Summer associates are on the slow train to being fucked.

Associates were cut either 10% or 20%. So, the third years who were cut 20% are at $136,000 down from $170,000. DLA is actually going to pay some third years LESS than it pays some first years.

@ 5 - 2009 Washington Nationals

I am getting pretty sick of the salary cut whining from "biglaw" associates. The entire business model is bloated and flawed. Biglaw attorneys are over paid and over worked and clients are over billed. Everyone is perfectly happy to rake in the big bucks during the good times but immediately start bitching when the inevitable bust times happen. Take a step back, a big deep breath and look around. Small to mid-sized firms in large part are weathering the storm better than most (although not without their own problems). Also their attorneys are happier, are able to spend time with their families and actually know what it is like to have the sun on their face and free time on a weekend. If Biglaw could just reduce salaries, billing requirements and billable rates by 10% we wouldn't see bursts of hirings and firings. You choose your Biglaw career out of law school and follow the path so easy to take. Don't be surprised when these firms kick you to the curb as soon as going gets tough. These firms don't own you anything and by taking a job there you just feed the beast. Think for yourself, take ownership of your career don't expect it to be handed to you on a platter.

Stay classy DLA !

If you're going to screw folks, screw everyone equally!

This is rather humane. As opposed to say a vault five firm cutting 10 percent of its associates down to ZERO pay, and pretending the firings were 'merit based'....not that such a thing would happen.

Now that a top firm has cut salaries, you can expect others to follow suit quickly, and they should.

A modest pay cut to save jobs is well worth it.

I am sure the top firms who cut pay next week will be very concerned their associates will go elsewhere. After all, jobs abound in the legal field, in particular jobs requiring no experience but starting at 160K....

Bottom line, fuctards, is this: the well run firms are cutting costs where they can, and cutting assoc salary by these small amounts are an obvious and good decision.

103, I agree that a modest pay cut to save jobs is well worth it, but it doesn't sound like DLA imposed modest pay cuts.

DLA already had a salary freeze in place. 10-20% salary cuts on top of that is equivalent to 20-30% cuts in anticipated salary. That to me is more than "modest."

105 - these are very, very modest cuts.

If the associates at DL Piper disagree, they are free to leave. I am sure lots of former SC, Latham etc folks are happy to take their places at the new "horribly low" salaries...

These cuts are horrible! I am sure at least one or two independently wealthy associates will angrily consider trying to find a new job, realize there are no jobs to be had, and then sit down and SHUT THE FUCK UP and GET BACK TO WORK.

Count your blessings you are not unemployed like so many of our brethren. 100K is more than enough money for a first year in NYC, and it should be half that out in the hinterlands.

Paralegals and secretaries have to live on 100K or even less despite massive overtime, so have some perspective.

Hey Lee: when are you going to announce a commensurate reduction in hourly rates? During a prolonged downturn most companies slash their prices .....

Fine, cut salaries. But at least try to pass those savings on to clients and lure more business. What difference does it make if you have idle associates at $145K versus having them at $160K? Either way, you're looking at firing a bunch of associates. Hopefully DLA will be lowering those associates' billing rates and trying to attract more business.

This was an awful move by DLA's leadership which will come back to bite when the market improves. DLA associates and recruits will not forget that the firm was one of the first to freeze and then cut salaries when the going got tough.

This was a gutsy move, and will show potential laterals that those who matter (people with business) will not be sacrificed on the altar of "lets overpay the associates"

Gutsy move. Watch for other firms to follow.

Speculation as to how far up the ladder these cuts will go? Not that the ladder positions are very clear anymore or anything.

If i read the memo correctly, it seems possible that superstars will FINALLY be paid fairly because lock step is dead.

This could prove a recruiting boon if top performers understand they can make what they are worth.

Good luck to all. Please keep the 1000s of recently fired big law associates in mind when carping here. Bad form will not do....

it's so quaint the way people think that demand is going to bounce back

93- 89 here.

Your observations are correct, but based on an assumption which is now open to serious doubt.

BigLaw associate salaries have, for the last thirty years, lagged a bit behind what the big investment banks were paying their new recruits. You would see large boosts in starting salaries in a relatively short time, followed by years of stagnation, followed by double digit % increases. It happened during the boom years of the late eighties, again in the late nineties and finally, two to three years ago. BigLaw partners saw their best summers going to investment banks instead of taking their offers because the banks were paying as much as 50% more than what those summers were paid at the firms. The partners would then, usually very reluctantly, agree that without boosting salaries close to what Wall Street was paying, they were not getting the type of talent they wanted. And once one started, most other firm acted like lemmings following the leader. How else do you justify the fact that until recently, all BigLaw firms paid first years the exact same amount as starting salaries?

Here's the problem with your assumption. The driver for talent on Wall Street was the ever escolating need for bodies as new investment vehicles became available. This reached its apex in the mid part of this decade. Now, however, Wall Street is in shambles. There are no more investment banks in the traditional sense, and the need for legal services specifically addressing the needs of Wall Street is way down, and not likely to recover any time soon.

You add to that the very real anger felt by most in house counsel that legal fees, especially those charged for work by associates, have gotten way out of control. These in house lawyers, and their companies, are demanding rate cuts, special deals, etc. Many are no longer willing to pay $400 plus an hour for a rookie fresh out of law school. Take, for example, what Merrill Lynch used to accept as reasonable billing rates, and what Bof A does now.

Yes, there will always be a need for exceptional lawyers, and they will be able to charge pretty much whatever they want. But that will be only after they have proved their worth in the market. No first year associate will ever be an exceptional lawyer, because that requires training and experience, none of which anyone gets in law school.

So, until Wall Street recovers, and the competition for " the best and the brightest" requires BigLaw firms to raise salaries, they won't. And now that some firms are reducing salaries, the lemming like behaviour going up will be matched on the way down.

110 - they also no-offered a huge chunk of last's summer's class

The clients are demanding the firms do this.

The firms that care about client service will comply.

The arrogant firms that secretly HATE and DESPISE their clients will not reduce salaries.

I hope more clients make it clear they expect their lawyers to RESPECT them, and reduce associate salaries.

Secretaries and paralegals have to survive on far less money. It is only fair that the lawyers take a small reduction during this Greatest of Great Depressions.

63,

Is that a Galaxy Quest reference?

Game over, man! Game over!!!

The downfall of DLA: they merge with everyone under the sun trying to build a "global" brand. The quality of lawyers suffer. Then they lose their number 1 rainmaker (amy schulman). So: they lay cancel holiday parties, they lay-off a ton of associates, they make non-equity partners give the firm 150k each to just "become" equity partners, they freeze salaries, they cut partner salaries, they have more lay-offs, they cut associate salaries. Wow. Is there anything left for this horrible firm to do? Yes, fold. Bye bye DLA. Clients are not going to pay your bloated rates (and bloated egos), for the lawyering of a chop shop firm in Spokane that you decided to merge with for the sake of being global. IDIOTS.

111 = the correct response.

DLA looks smart to the people who matter.

Plus, you can bet that this is going to open the floodgates. You will see at least five other AmLaw Top 50 firms cut associate salaries in the next week or two.

They'll lose more than this if associate hours drop by more than 2-3 hours a week, and they lost that much this afternoon when most of them read the e-mail, turned off their computers and walked out.

They'll lose more than this if associate hours drop by more than 2-3 hours a week, and they lost that much this afternoon when most of them read the e-mail, turned off their computers and walked out.

You ain't seen nothin' yet! My party has been spending the money since 2006!

Look - It's all about CASH FLOW. Even if the clients have work to send to partners and they have the work to give to the associates to generate great big, juicy bills, if the clients can't pay their bills, the firms can't make their payrole..

My partners & I left a mid-size midwestern firm & started a small firm - great idea: we have a book of business, so we benefit from lower overhead & not having to share with the bloated buddies of the managing partner. Yippee!

Now the clients are slow pay or no-pay and cutting bills they didn't cut before. My partners & I have cut our family budgets to the bone and I've had to pay the mortgage late twice, but we've never missed a payroll for the associate (yes, we only have one) and staff. That may happen next pay cycle.

Cash flow is no different in a big firm, but with more partners with more clients, when a few clients get in trouble, cash flow is less impacts. In this economy, ALL the clients are in economic trouble & they know if they don't pay their lawyers they'll probably still get service to a while (because lawyers part with clients like Warren Buffet parts with a nickle).

And don't suggest a credit line. You can't buy an SBA loan so we're eating up home equity to get thru.

Law school doesn't teach associates anything about the business of running a law firm - any they should.

126 here. Sorry about the typos - it's been a long day...

89/115 - 93 here.

I appreciate the well thought out response. I don't, however, think my argument necessarily rests on the premise you think it does, i.e. biglaw has to compete with investment banks. That's true to some degree, but what I'm really talking about is other legal opportunities. biglaw at $160K compared to government at $60K or non-profit at $40K is one thing.

But look at all those surveys of law students, or pre-law students that show how many people want to do things other than biglaw. Hell, that was me. But then you come out of law school with 6 figures of debt, low 6 figures if you're lucky, and all of a sudden the going rate of $160K (plus bonus!) per soul isn't looking so awful.

Cut that salary dramatically and I start to rethink the calculus, and I doubt I'm alone here. Look at the comments earlier today about how great government work is. 9-5 or 6, very few if any weekends, great benefits, loan repayment. Only catch is, you gotta take a $100K salary hit out of the gate. Ouch.

But what if it's not a $100K hit? What if it's a $70K hit? That's still a massive difference, I grant you, but so is the job I just described vs. biglaw.

Or let's even look at non-profit. The salary is even lower, but believe me, there's no doc review. You may have to get help sometimes, but you're doing it all the day you start. None of this ask-the-partner, kids-table shit.

Like I said, biglaw is still going to get plenty of people at $145K, and even a decent amount at $130K. But if you're a top firm, and I'm not talking everyone who went to $160K when times were great, but a real top-of-the-market, or at least top-of-your-market firm, that kind of talent drain is unacceptable.

We shall see who's right I guess. But just speaking for myself, I'm not giving up my nights, weekends, and professional satisfaction (I'm not talking about public interest vs. corporate clients, I'm talking being "the lawyer" vs. "the junior associate") to be in a marginally better financial position.

Elie/David - what I hope is not overlooked in DLA's move is that they made a calculated move to mislead abovethelaw and its readers by saying that starting salaries were being lowered to 145. That's not true. A number of first year attorneys salaries were lowered to 128k. There are 3rd years making 136k. Their efforts to cover for there salary reductions should be given more exposure.

I agree with 111 that this was a positive move for the firm, even though I don't like some aspects. For example, the memo is misleading. 145k is the starting salary for incoming 1st year associates at the end of '09 start of '10. The scale in MAJOR markets for current associates is now 2-tier and roughly:

'08 128k /144k
'07 128k/144k
'06 136k/153k
'05 148k/166k
'04 170k/190k
'03 180k/205k
'02 195k/220k
'01 210k/235k

Minor markets should be 15-30k lower than this across the board.

Who is surprised that a failing firm like DLA Piper has to cut salaries? Of what relevance is it to the rest of us?

If law firms cut pay, mid-levels will once again be able to go in-house without suffering much of a pay cut. Firms that cut pay will therefore lose the mid-levels that would otherwise stick around a few more years to make money and roll the dice to see if they can make partner.

When my V50 firm froze, I thought about looking for something in-house, but decided to stick it out another year. If my firm cuts or fails to give a raise this January, I'll start interviewing for in-house opportunities.

Sure, my firm would probably like the voluntary departures - but they won't get the departures they want. There are still limited opportunities out there, so it will be the T14 / law review / top 10% 3rd-6th year associates that get the in-house jobs. The 4th years with lesser resumes, that are still regularly doing doc review, with be the ones without exit opportunities.

(Resume strength is not 100% correlated with how valuable an associate is, of course, but none of the worst associates at my firm have anything close to impressive credentials and the people that were top candidates when they were hired are all at least above average associates.)

They only way these pay cuts won't hurt the firm in the long run is if they actually use their supposed discretion to not lower the pay of those mid/senior associates that they really want to stick around for the up/out decision. I'm not sure if I'd want to make partner at a firm that does that and has the environment that such a policy would create, but, if I were chosen not to receive a pay cut, it would at least make me think twice before leaving. Everybody likes (1) to be told that they are special; and (2) make more money.

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

I just learned how to post the same comment multiple times! Yeah!

First, suckas!!

Second, bitches!!!

Going inhouse is hardly an option, given that almost all inhouse legal departments have been laying off attorneys for the past year or more. The best thing for a young attorney to do is become a pet sitter. It's easy work, the pay sucks, but the work sucks even more. Sounds a lot like the practice of law in the real world.

I'm an Associate at DLA. All you need to do is read posts 129-30. That pretty much tells the story.

One other thing should be said:

Associates either got a 10% or 20% cut. Despite steering idle Associates toward pro bono work, which is credited up to 100 hours, the firm did not consider pro bono work in determining compensation for the remainder of the year.

So if you did 50 hours of pro bono work, DLA considered 0 of those hours in determining your annualized pace (based on the first four months of the year).

I'm sure this will be highlighted in our future marketing materials...

the clients are demanding firms do this.

firms that are responsive to clients will follow suit.

firms that forget who calls the shots will not follow, for a time, until they get the message.

good luck to all of you at firms with management so tone deaf they think they can ignore the clients here.

It's about time. The race to the top for inexperienced associates was simply ridiculous. I will soon be announcing a more sensible associate pay scale at Latham, which many of our clients have been asking for.

maybe they should have done the prestigious thing: fire ten percent of all associates and claim it was a performance based thingie...but not bother to explain to clients why ten percent of the firm was just discovered to be fucked up?

The smart associates are glad to see this. Firms who right size comp to reflect the new economy are less likely to fire en masse. I anticipate most associates committees at other top firms are urging their firms' management to quickly make these modest reductions.

I just wonder if lowering salaries in New York might not affect a metaphorical "famine time" in the City. If so this, could lead to a Scattering of highly trained attorneys far beyond the normal confines of big law. If this happens, big law firms better understand that when the lawyers from the Scattering return, those attorneys may have new and unpredictable skill sets.

I wonder if the thousands of laid off big law associates from vault 50 firms would have rather had a tiny salary reduction than a pink slip?

A friend of a friend said some guy named Elie Mystal has a 2 inch cock when erect, can any dudes confirm?

I banged a Hofstra DLA Associate in the ass. True story. HOFSTRA!!!

148: The problem with your analysis is that nearly all the firms already did lay off en masse.

These pay reductions from "lofty" levels to merely "staggeringly high" seem pretty reasonable to me.

The partners at the firms that refuse to right size their headcount and cost structure should be concerned that their PPP will be down unnecessarily as a result of bad management that lacks the spine to stand up to associates who literally have no other jobs to go to.

Secretaries are living on much less than associates, yet are just as valuable in most cases.

Lol at 155. I have a terrific secretary, but I can categorically asy she is not even close to as valuable as my junior associates. And there's much more tolerance for terrible secretaries than associates at most firms. My last one was terrible. The only thing she could do was expense reports and enter time entries. Often wrong. In boomtimes, a secretary would essentially have to kill someone to get fired at my firm. These are not boomtimes, and there have been some staff layoffs. But seemed pretty arbitrary to me. Some who were let go are better than some who remain.

DLA has reduced salaries but yet Jeffrey Steiner and his group are still collecting their exorbitant salaries. They will take down any firm they join. They claim they have a big book of business but that has dried up. DLA should kick them to the curb before they bankrupt another firm.

Re: 144, I have a good friend who works at DLA. He is a a 4th year and now is now making less than a 1st year in most markets.

Does anyone know Chris Aalbersberg, Senior Associate in Amsterdam? I heard he's making bank.

111, do you realize that most of the lateral hires at DLA suck and have no business? "People that matter"--that doesn't include the laterals over the past year. Nice work, management. Sell out up and coming associates who actually have ambition and will hustle to add to the bottom line while awarding guaranteed contracts for years to laterals who inflated their books of business and sit on their butts. THAT is why DLA is being drained, not associate salaries.

111, do you realize that most of the lateral hires at DLA suck and have no business? "People that matter"--that doesn't include the laterals over the past year. Nice work, management. Sell out up and coming associates who actually have ambition and will hustle to add to the bottom line while awarding guaranteed contracts for years to laterals who inflated their books of business and sit on their butts. THAT is why DLA is being drained, not associate salaries.

#152 - male or female associate?

107-
just to let you know, your comment that 100k is more than enough for a first year to live in NYC has zero basis or support. In case you're not familiar with Manhattan rents and expenses... $100k is BARELY enough to live comfortably...and that's with ZERO student loans or debt. with massive student loans (which many of us have), even two lawyers salaries in one household are barely enough to get by comfortably.

163 - why are you crying? I lived in Queens for $600/mo and saved massive amounts of cash.

DLA associate here - '99 grad now making 212. Prior posters are correct - NOTHING was taking in account other than hours. Not pro bono. Not performance reviews. Did not matter if you graded out at the top of your class and happened to not be busy. Also, how about finding out about your salary from a mail room person handing out envelopes!

What is the mood like at DLA? Are people upset about how this all went down, or are people just happy to have a job still and figured that this would eventually happen?

People keep referring to these cuts as "modest," but in many cases they seem pretty significant to me.

165 here - I think the mood is now down right awful frankly. I'm still not sure what to think or do (we have SO many options right now). You also have the issue of NUMEROUS lateral partners not pulling their weight - or in some cases pulling any weight. The cuts seem to have been either one of two flavors - 10% or 20%. Nothing in between and no one was given individual looks - didn't matter if you were out sick, took a long vacation in the beginning of the year, etc. Not on pace - 20% cut.

If I was a mid-level making less than 150k, I'd just hang it up and go try to start a business. BigLaw is not worth the torture at that price point -- viable exit options or not.

@ 165: Isn't 10 years kind of a long time to be an associate?

165 here - special circumstances. But yes 169, I would otherwise agree with you.

Did everyone have their salaries slashed at last 10 percent? Were there "superstars" that kept their current [albeit frozen] salary?

I understand everyone was cut at least 10%. It did NOT matter WHO you were - I was one of the top other than my hours and got hit 20%. There was NO qualitative analysis.

165/167/172 are correct. You could get great performance reviews/make in excess of your budget for years/ be well regarded/ do pro bono work etc, but still the ONLY thing that was taken into account when cutting salaries was whether you were on pace for the first 4 months of this year. The published memo does not disclose this. You could be a pretty average associate and happen to have been staffed on a doc review for the first 4 months or hoarded your work and hey suddenly you are getting paid more than other associates.

165/167/172 and 173 are correct - it was all about whether you were on track to make your hours - nothing else was considered. 158 is also correct. A fourth year's cut could have put you below a first year, starting next January, in the same office. Also, if this was for the client's benefit, why didn't billing rates go down?

174 -- WTF? Any non first year making less than a first year is just wrong and cannot be justified. DLA is really ok with this?

Seems F'ed up that its going to take a few years to get back to what you are making today.

This place blows. DLA to $75,000.

166 - my west coast office was virtually deserted after 3 pm yesterday. The few associates I talked to (transactional and IP) were really disappointed at the magnitude of the cuts and how the reductions were communicated (i.e., e-mail followed by delivery of a letter by some staffer).

A lot of people also noted that the timing is interesting given that the first summer associate event is only a couple of weeks away. Obviously this will be the talk of the SA lunches over the course of the summer. The fact that the firm could not wait for an additional 8-10 weeks to deliver the bad news speaks volumes about the financial trouble we're in....

The funny thing is that the local market is still pretty good for in-house positions for senior attorneys (in the past 12 months I have been approached with, and declined, two opportunities that would have paid more than what I make now). I would be very surprised if we don't have at least a couple of in-house defections by the end of this year.

cant believe people saying you cant live off of 100K in nyc...you can if you are not living in chelsea/UES/UPS/Wall street

There are 1 bedrooms (1K-1.5K) -2 bedroom (1.5-2K)apartments in Manhattan/Queens/Brooklyn and Staten Island.

But if you want to shop organic, shop at barneys, have a personal trainer, have fullout cable, live in a doorman building, an drop $100 for modest meal at a restaurant...sure....its tough....

GET A GRIP PEOPLE.

Elie, you have a lot more digging to do regarding this deeply troubled and spectacularly mismanaged firm. Some of the posters here are leading you in the right direction, but I see no reference to other major happenings such as the mass exodus of over 100 attorneys/staff in the UK this week, for instance.

Any word on how a firm like Jones Day is dealing with this recession? In some sense (from an outsider's perspective) it seems similar to DLA Piper (in size and global presence), yet I have not heard boo from my friends that work there.

174: There is nothing about all that is happening at DLA that is for the clients' benefit. This is a firm that is struggling to remain in existence.

174/181 is right. If this had been done for the clients' benefit, the salary cut would have been accompanied by a billing rate reduction. This is all about preserving PPP, so that the (few remaining) rainmakers will not leave.

177,

I hope you are lying about getting offered two positions in the last year for more money and turning them down.

Because, if you are telling the truth, then you have NO SENSE at all. Seriously, go get spayed/neutered and do everyone a favor, because you are too stupid to breed. Out of the gene pool!

All you fucking losers bitching need to just leave, if you have not been fired for your crap work already.

Fucking losers with nothing to do but criticize your betters, you fucking second tier douchebags.

May the Lord bless you all.

Given the attitude displayed by the associates here, it seems Piper needs to get serious about headcount reductions. So many bad apples cannot be good, and anyone stupid enough to bitch about a modest pay cut while other firms are laying off 10 percent or more of their total headcount is too stupid to work at a top law firm.

HTMFH

These cuts are not really signficant - a few dollars a week basically (on my math).

Good luck in the lateral market by the way.

184/185/186 = Lee, Nigel and Frank

I am puzzled as to what the big deal is. Some marginal associates see their pay cut and the stars get a pay increase. Seems like a good thing to me.

183 - for more money than I make NOW... Reading comprehension much? FYI I did not consider them career opportunities for me at the time (given I have a small book of business and was well on my way to partnership).

If presented with a similar opportunity at this time, I may think differently, though.

188 - that's not what happened. dla didn't go off lockstep. it reduced all associate salaries to the $145K scale and then cut every associate's salary by 10 or 20% on top of that. that means all of the associates suffered approximately a 20-30% reduction in pay depending on their hours.

188 - that's not what happened. dla didn't go off lockstep. it reduced all associate salaries to the $145K scale and then cut every associate's salary by 10 or 20% on top of that. that means all of the associates suffered approximately a 20-30% reduction in pay depending on their hours.

188 - that's not what happened. dla didn't go off lockstep. it reduced all associate salaries to the $145K scale and then cut every associate's salary by 10 or 20% on top of that. that means all of the associates suffered approximately a 20-30% reduction in pay depending on their hours.

190:

I44 here. In fairness to the firm, I'm not sure you're right here. The rough scale put forth by 46 is fairly accurate, but associates didn't get another 10%-20% cut *on top of that*. Some associates did get another 10% cut though from the 145 scale... so it's entirely possible that, for example, a second-year who had her salary frozen at 160 is making $128 - a 20% total cut. And yes, some fourth-years are now making 148 - 12k less than what a first-year is making two blocks away

To answer 166, I can only say from my perspective that the writing was on the wall. This was going to happen. The bitterness you see is the firm's continuing failure to be straight with us. Note that the e-mail you see in Elie's post says nothing about the criteria that was used to make the these decisions. And there's a reason for this...

There were no criteria. The vague allusion to "case-by-base" determinations meant simply that the firm looked at straight billable hours for the first four months - pro bono hours, which are normally credited, weren't credited.

None of this was communicated to us in the e-mail - we had to find this out by talking to our practice group leaders or associate reps. My practice group leader didn't even know that our salaries were being cut.

So, yeah, I'm not complaining about the salary cuts. It's the opaque way that the firm continues to go about communicating with us - something that I am sure will be remedied when the market for in-house positions starts to get better.

I am a Third Year at DLA. My salary is now below 145K, which I understand is the starting salary for first years in my market. How does that make sense? Are these First Years, with no experience, "top performers?"

I am a Third Year at DLA. My salary is now below 145K, which I understand is the starting salary for first years in my market. Are these First Years, with no experience, "top performers?" And 193, you are right. The way it was communicated was pretty bad. Envelopes contemporaneous with the email?

"These measures will provide us with flexibility and additional competitive strength to win important engagements and continue to grow our business."

These savings are not passed on to clients as billing rate reductions, however they will allow the firm to "underbid" other law firms for fixed price projects with major (Pfizer etc.) clients. Thus, the firm's emerging growth clients will continute to pay insanely high rates, whereas the few blue chip clients will see even bigger discounts on the "important engagements." Apparently, both associates and small company clients are getting fucked royally here.

"No one can predict the next developments in the economy, but we believe that these actions will help protect the firm and our people."

Meaning that even though we cut your compensation by 20% now, we still reserve the right to fire your ass in a few months.

I'm a midlevel at dla. I've found it a reasonably good place to work -- decent work, not horribly over-leveraged, no more or less personality problems than expected of a large law firm, seemingly realistic partnership opportunities (at least relative to many other places these days), etc.

But this pay cut, which comes on top of the freeze, is just too much. I now make approximately $40k less per year in base salary than colleagues who are my class year at other firms in the city. Making matters worse, I am working considerably harder than they are. The numbers just don't add up anymore. I am one of those who would have happily considered taking a 20% pay cut in exchange for commensurately less being expected on the billable hour front. But with this -- and with DLA's persistent refusal to pay market bonuses in new york -- the writing on the wall continues to get clearer.

193's comments (and those of others) about the opacity/deception in how they went about this are spot on. The real problem is that the memo is a lie -- it suggests that they are taking all sorts of things into account in this process, and possibly even breaking the absurd lockstep regime for more senior associates, when they clearly are doing nothing of the sort. Many commenters on here have called DLA "poorly managed" without explaining why. This is one reason. It is a reflection of the fact that the firm is run out of a different city, and the offices have little to no authority to do anything on their own, including (maybe "especially") salary issues.

I do wonder what, if anything, this signals about the overall health of the firm. Recent numbers (i.e. from 08) don't suggest a collapse. But plenty of things do, like this.

Free drinks in the fridges, though, are a nice touch. Wonder how long it will last.

Sigh.

People listen up - there was no differentiation based on performance - it was SOLELY hours based. It didn't matter if you graded out top in your class or if you were a star - if you were not on pace through the first for months (for whatever reason - lack of work, vacations, weddings, family issues), you got cut 20%, REGARDLESS of your prior performance reviews. All others cut a 10% cut.

Low bonuses and low salaries save very few, in any, jobs. DLA has already fired tons of people. DLA (or any firm) wants to maximize profits -- it's not like they have a magic profit number in mind and, once they reach it, they stop cutting people. In fact, they probably intend the cuts to thin the ranks by encouraging folks to leave w/o the need for severance.

And, contrary to 145 et al, to my knowledge, no clients are demanding associate pay cuts. They want lower billing rates ---- most of which serve to line the pockets of partners. If firms cut associate pay as a result of lower rates, it is entirely incidental, as far as a client is concerned.

Anyone who would just suck it up and not look for alternative work after a 20+% pay cut is not someone I would want to hire as my lawyer. If you are good, you should be able to do better elsewhere.

Amen 199 - I have spent the day looking around and have identified a couple of opportunities already. Most of them require relocation, but it's time to experience something new anyway...

Any indication on whether or not the money cut out of your salary can somehow be recouped via performance bonus, or something?

My guess is no, as DLA appears to be cheap, cheap, cheap. If other peer firms don't cut as drastically as DLA, there is going to be a mass exodus like no other once the economy shapes up.

With salary cuts on top of the already in place salary freeze, DLA is now officially a third tier law firm.

There is a bonus pool and from what I understand the practice group heads have (or supposed to have) wide lattitude in doling out bonuses. The problem is if you got a 20% cut you are behind on hours - some of us so far behind its going to be difficult to make it up.

There is a bonus pool and from what I understand the practice group heads have (or supposed to have) wide lattitude in doling out bonuses. The problem is if you got a 20% cut you are behind on hours - some of us so far behind its going to be difficult to make it up.

DLA mid-level here (Chicago): Have had great performance reviews for the past few years, but my hours this year so far have [not surprisingly] been low. I just found out that my already frozen salary has been slashed 20 percent. No explanation whatsoever. I am now making less then when I started.

Not worth the stress and endless BS anymore. No clue what the future holds for me, but it won't be slaving away at DLA.

Look people I know paycuts are hard to swallow but have you considered that this might be the only path in which all of biglaw is not rendered extinct? Biglaw has become stagnant. Those who seek to steer law off this path may seem to be tyrants but maybe they are actually sacrificing more than we can imagine so that biglaw can survive.

I nominate 206 for dumbest comment of the year (and that's saying a lot on this blog). Let me get this straight, firms are cutting salaries "so that big law can survive."? What does that even mean?! All the hours and crap/mindless/document review type work of "big law" but now with a crap salary too? Yes, great, than I really hope big law "survives" . . . and I hope you stay there for another 20 yrs . . . IDIOT. You're as smart as DLA's management team (who had the "bright" idea of merging with every podunk firm in every little town and thought somehow clients would pay the overinflated rates of the no-talent hack lawyers). Whoops. Bye bye DLA.

Those mother f@#%#$. I hope Frank, Lee and the entire firm go bankrupt. You should see the rates these retards charge in second and third tier markets. It is ridiculous. They sold us a bill of goods. The firm is a joke. If they offered a voluntary severance package, I would take it in a second flat.

6th year associate at DLA. The firm screwed me on my bonus earlier this year - giving me and everyone else the very bottom of the bonus range. I estimate that I lost at least 20K on that cheap ass move. Then the salary freeze, another 10k. Now a 20% reduction for another 34k in losses this year. These bastards have screwed me out of 64k this year (and I am not in NY or LA). Yet they have yet to reduce the obscene rates that the firm charges.

I got my memo from some flunky. The memo informed me of my new salary "pursuant to our e-mail regarding the new Associate Pay structure." I didn't receive that jewel of an e-mail for several more hours. Classy.

My practice group leader was conveniently out of the office.

I hope this place dies.

209 forgets to mention that 2008 was a record year in terms of profitability and revenue. They screwed associates on bonuses in 2008 based on a projected reduction in revenue in 2009.

So you guys have to go to Ft. Lauderdale or Hilton Head for vacation this summer instead of the Hamptons or bringing the family to Hawaii. Maybe have to set back your designs on a new boat or car for another couple years. Big freaking deal. I can see being upset (in fact very) about how it was handled, and sure it's shoddy management, but take a harder look at the economic impact in your lives. So you gotta go out once a weekend to a hot new restaurant instead of twice. So you gotta leave after the second caraffe of flavored vodka at Russian Samovar instead of the third (without treating the cute marketing chicks). Just stock up on some Ramen noodles and wait it out, pansies! Just be GOOD at what you do and you'll get what you want, whether at DLA or somewhere else. Sure this statement doesn't apply to single mothers, or people supporting their kids or parents or other life circumstances. But for most people I know, you just got a little less lifestyle coming. Learn how to enjoy life while having a brown bag lunch once in a while.

DLA mid-level associate here (Chicago) - I can safely say that every associate I know will leave the firm once they are able to.

@210 - 2008 profitability is irrelevant. They zero the books at the end of the fiscal year which is usually end of calendar year or end of march. Credit lines are shrunk and the clients aren't paying their bills. No money in + no money our in payroll. The problem isn't profitability on the books. Its cash flow to pay payroll & overhead right now.

211: You must be management or, at least, an equity partner - your attitude shows and you completely misinterpret what people want. Yes, people who excel academically, then put in the long hours and put up with the stress in a firm that's imperiled do expect fair remuneration and the luxuries it can buy in return for their effort. But more than anything, people desire respect; however, the way this was handled was coarse and utterly contemptuous of your associates. When you write, "just be GOOD at what you do," I am uncertain whether you are implying your associates haven't been good enough, or that they should continue to strive despite how you treat them. Either way, your attitude is arrogant and you deserve whatever reduction in loyalty and effort your associates deem appropriate.

214, 211 here. Actually I'm a senior associate. You must be a law student. And if you were at all adept at reading comp, you'd see that I agreed it was handled poorly. I certainly felt anger and disbelief when an HR hack handed me an envelope with a 10% cut in pay. Upon reflection and after a couple bottles of wine and a day or two, I realized it's not a big deal. I still make great money. Obviously DLA Piper doesn't care about my loyalty right now, jackass. I'm just saying, focus on living well and stop acting like a victim when you feel slighted by the largest McDonald's law firm in the world in which you knew you were getting into in the first place. Go complain to your professional responsibility professor in law school.

211/215, I am a senior associate at another firm. It's pretty pathetic how you talk yourself into being OK with a pretty awful situation. I didn't work my ass off for a decade to compare my life favorably to a single mother. Complacent loser.

Well that's just it, 216. I didn't work my ass off for a decade and am quite sure have a better life than you. But you're a big winner in "not going to stand for any BigLaw BS!" Department. Congrats!

what if someone was on maternity or paternity leave during part of the first four months of the year? Was that considered?

218 - probably not! It was based on pure hours. Didn't care if we were on vacation, sick, or whatever. Didn't even THINK about the fact that now many of us are making LESS than effing first years with the cut.

214 to 211/215: Ok, I was mistaken - you are a senior associate. My reading comp, however, is fine. You acknowledge it was "handled poorly" in both posts, but the larger point is that you willingly downplay that fact as if "still mak[ing] great money" is an acceptable substitute for being treated with respect as a person. Living well apparently means two different things to you and me, because no amount of money or wine can substitute to me for not being treated with integrity and respect, particularly from a firm that claims "Everything Matters."

Even after the pay cut, DLA still seems to pay a pretty good salary. And it's certainly better than being fired. Why the outrage?

All these comments about "you still make a lot of money" is entirely beside the point. Here are the economics, an associate should be paid somewhere in the range of 30%-33% of collections (one third for a seat cost, one third for the partnership, and one third as compensation). If one's billing rate is (for sake of argument) $400/hr., and that person bills 2000 hours at a 90% collection rate (95% realization with a 5% uncollectable), then the person's total compensation should be in the range of $250k. If it isn't, then there are one of two scenario's: (1) cash flow is so poor that the only way a firm can survive is to cut expenses in the form of salaries, or (2) the lost compensation is being used to support underperformers.

Whichever is the case, it is the business owners (i.e. equity or share partners) that should be taking the hit, not employees.

(Not a DLA associate, or an associate anywhere else).

If you really want to show your discontent, slow down your work. Come in at 10 am and go home at 4. Refuse to take projects, refuse to travel, and peform 0 non-billable work. Target yourself to come in at 3xcurrent compensation/billing rate.

215:

"I'm just saying, focus on living well and stop acting like a victim when you feel slighted by the largest McDonald's law firm in the world in which you knew you were getting into in the first place."

It always amazes me when people like you are so confident in their own ignorance. Anyone who is a fourth year or above had no idea that the firm would become, as you so creatively point out, "the largest McDonald's law firm in the world."

I had my pick of firms, but I chose Piper Rudnick. The pay was comparatively lower than other firms, but the firm wasn't obsessed with billable hours either. The people their just seemed like they had more balanced lives.

So you're just wrong. Please take your incorrigible idiocy elsewhere.

This is terribly.

All of your very valuable and highly trained associates, with your degrees from top 160 schools (and some of you were even in the top 80% of your class!) should just go to one of your more attractive opportunities.

DLA would then have to console itself with top tier grads recently shown the door at the vault ten....and those folks, having stared career death in the face, would probably understand they should be thankful to have a job.

Or some might say.

224:

It's always sad to see people like you you populate this board with endless drivel. I went to a top ten school and graduated with latin after my name... and I work at DLA Piper.

The DLA Piper lawyers who work at the schools that you have so much disdain for are amongst the better and more humane lawyers at the firm.

So you keep convincing yourself that you're better because you're working at 8 AM on a Sunday morning with a bunch of douchebags from Harvard, Columbia, or wherever. Have fun with that, buddy. Enjoy your meaningeless existence.

I think the real takeaway here is when firms try to share the pain, and save jobs, they get excoriated.

Next time, just fire 10% and say it was performance based, and work everyone harder, right?

Sad that humane, well managed firms are criticized by trolls on the interwebs. Slight paycuts to keep your fellow associates employed until this depression ends is horrible? You are swine.

226 is correct. Apparently, some of the not so bright are confused why billing 1000 hours per year does not merit 160K to start. Rather than cutting across the board, a firm decides to be Christian about the whole thing and then is excoriated.

Firms that do the professional, collegial thing such as slight almost imperceptible cuts in pay are rare, special places. Consider this kids when deciding where you want to work.

Would you rather (i) be shit canned and have a firm lie and say "performance based" - meaning your career is dead, or (ii) have a small reduction in pay until the legal recession is over?

226:

The firm already cut 10% and is working everyone harder - we're just getting paid less.

The owners of the firm are free to cut salaries. Personally, that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that they failed to provide the most basic facts about what went into the decisionmaking process and changed the rules in the middle of the game as to what hours were credited.

It's hard to argue that the firm is well-managed when you freeze salaries, layoff people, cut salaries, and then assert that such measures will "provide us with flexibility and additional competitive strength to win important engagements and continue to grow our business" without even raising the specter of rate cuts.

228 - isn't piper a rather large firm? perhaps the managing partner was not able to come to your office in st louis and share the news personally with such superstars as yourself due to time constraints?

229, you forget that all of the associates posting here are quite special, and graduated cum laude at some of the top 150 ranked law schools in America. Special cases, one and all.

I expect the management of other firms may rethink their no layoff policies after reading some of these snotty comments!

It seems clear this firm tried to do the right thing by its associates, only to see a breathtaking lack of gratitude.

The compensation reductions are exceedingly modest compared to what you would be drawing on a redundancy cheque!

223, you're just an idiot and I'm amazed you survived layoffs. Plenty of people have left the firm over the past 4 years because they saw where we were headed and didn't like the big, impersonal, Cahill-ification of DLA Piper. Yet you stayed, but now this latest round of impersonal, bad management is the last straw for you? But you're not incorrigible like me...nice! I'd get a new crystal ball, dumbass. Your firm let you down...AGAIN.

The legal industry is in uncharted waters and firms with creative management, not bound to the rigid ways of the past (fire en masse, claim said firings were "performance driven") are likely to do well.

Simply bizarre that pay cuts on the order of a few dollars a day generate such anger.

Grow the #&@^ up about "living in Manhattan on [number less than $160K].

First off, you don't have to live in F'ing Manhattan.

Second, the New York lifestyle as sold in TV and hedge fund magazines is a LIE unless you are independently wealthy or [had] some extremely overpaid PE or hedge fund job where you did nothing and pulled down seven figures.

Other than that, the people who make the money to live Sex & the City don't have time to do it, and those who have time to do it don't make the money. There is no rule that NYC has to make sense, let alone conform to your dreams.

Third, if you are carrying a mortgage in the form of student loans, perhaps you shouldn't be supporting a luxury apartment and lifestyle no matter where you live. You're not rich; you are borderline bankrupt. Deal.

Oh and fourth - the median income for Manhattan is nowhere near $160, and that's Manhattan, nevermind the rest of the city. Some people survivve there, rumor is.

about the last 15 comments or so must have been made by some serious DLA gunners looking to stay in that 10% cut range.

people don't take shitty biglaw jobs for the collegial atmosphere, they do it for big $$$. when your only incentive to work for a firm like this dissolves, after giving up a few of the best years of your life to get there (and i mean early associate years, not law school) it's not hard to see the bitterness. i dont think anyone realistically said they can't make ends meet now, it's obviously not about that. it's about your shitty job no longer making sense in the grand scheme, even if the salary still doesn't look that bad.

and don't say they did this to avoid layoffs, rumor has it they've been laying people off for quite some time, and they definitely laid off even more publicly not that long ago. sounds like now they are trying to force attrition rather than pay severance packages.

- not affiliated with the firm

235 = fuctard

Yeah, making 200k rather than zero for working 1500 hours a year simply "does not make sense" economically.

Most of the postings here are by recently laid off vault ten associates looking to find a job. These poor deluded idiots think that by encouraging associates at other firms to quit that they will find a new job. Wont happen. No one is quitting a job in this market, and the market will not come back for 10 to 20 years.

Piper kids, you need to grow up. BigLaw didn't promise you anything, other than good pay and shitty work until you leave or get booted down the road. If you expected anything else, then you're the fool. The firm exists to promote the financial best interests of the partners and management. They don't always make the best decisions, but they still get to make the decisions. What's been happening over the past year is a normal part of the business cycle. Banks went to hell because they were overleveraged. BigLaw is going to hell for the exact same reason. Grow up, get on with your life.

DLA Piper is one of the MOST poorly managed firms EVER. There is no unity, no single voice, no clear vision (though, I guess that is to be expected of a firm that is simply cobbled together by merging with 30+ other small firms throughout various regions and countries all over the world). They have now done everything under the sun to try and reduce costs (no-offered a bunch of last year's summers, canceled holiday parties, conducted stealth lay-offs, instituted a salary freeze, told non-equity partners to give them 150k each to buy their way into equity partner status, cut partner pay, cut this year's summer class, conducted more lay-offs, and now cut associate salaries (and morale)). This firm is fading fast. (And couldn't happen to a worse bunch of lawyers.) Bye bye DLA.

Let's get one thing straight: No thinking client has EVER complained about the level of associate salaries, without complaining first, and primarily, about the associate billable rates that support the supposedly inflated associate salaries.

A client complaining about associate salaries would be like someone who is buying a Big Mac complaining that McDonalds is paying too much for the sesame seeds on his hamburger bun.

If even half of the posters on here defending DLA Piper's actions are DLA partners, I would never want to work there.

What arrogant condescending asshats.

Moreover, they fail at basic math: How is a cut of $20-40k for midlevels (on top of a $20k freeze) modest, slight, or "a few dollars a day"?

236: I'd happily take less money to work less hours.

Does this paycut mean that the new target billable rate is 10% less?

Grow up, grow up, grow up, grow up, grow up. When you sell your soul to the devil, you can't complain when you don't get in to heaven.

Twenty percent is not a modest pay cut.

Twenty percent is a modest pay cut if someone was overpaid in the first place to the tune of at least 35%. Suck it.

243 -- Grow up? Do you expect gratefulness and thanks when people have their salaries slashed by a firm that's widely viewed as mismanaged? You kidding me?

Comments closed and game over!

Desperate laid off associates trying to stir the shit pot - 0

Elite still employed associates (albeit at slight pay decrease) -100

Could someone explain a few facts to our idiot partners:

1. 10% to 20% cuts are not negligible -- this may be the stupidest line of them all. How big does a cut have to be to hurt according to logic - 50%? Not to mention these cuts are to our already frozen salaries, so it's more than 10 to 20% compared to what we expected to be making five months ago and what we would be making at most v50 firms.

2. Cutting 10% of the salary for people on pace to bill 2000+ is absurd and only pushes your few performing associates out the doors.

3. This wasn't done to save jobs -- you've already done layoffs and we fully expect you bastards to do more.

4. Some of us do still have exit opportunities even in this market -- you might be aware that a few practice areas are actually hot. With your idiotic decision to cut the salaries of all associates (not just those not on pace to make hours), you just likely crippled your few useful departments, and certainly ended their ability to recruit and grow.

5. Plenty of the associates at DLA went to top 10 law schools, and many of the partners did not. So please stop with the moronic generalizations about qualifications. I have a fine collection of ivy league diplomas.

245: How do you determine whether someone was overpaid and to what extent?

By comparison to billing rates? If so, as mentioned by a prior poster, associates are still underpaid, since DLA associates are paid nowhere close to 1/3 of their billing rates assuming 2000 billed hours. If associates do not bill 2000 hours, it is due to the lack of work more often than any other factor. Who's fault is it if there is not enough work to do? Isn't it the job of the partners to bring in enough work to keep the firm profitable?

By comparison to the rest of the market? Well, as of today, DLA associates are now underpaid by at least 10-20%. More, if you consider the top of the market to be firms that have not even frozen salaries.

By some other factor? If so, please enlighten us.

Given that I have $250,000 in debt and no job, I would rather play the gom jabbar game with the Bene Gesserit witches instead of listening to those who have a job complain about a 20% pay cut.

245 -- Who says they're overpaid? If they're busy, their old salaries allow for wild profits in the partnership. The way to correct course is to fire associates, not cut salaries. Of course, if DLA is changing its model and lowering rates, this move might make sense.

Has anyone else found it odd that whenever there is a post about DLA Piper, we see a spurts of posts defending the firm's actions? (Moreso than we see people defending other firms). We see it here, we saw it in the layoffs post, we even saw it in the innocuous Ethiopia protest post a month ago. Consider that this morning certain posters have used the following improbable buzz phrases to characterize DLA and its decision to cut the salaries of all associates by 10-20% after having already frozen salaries:

"Christian"
"humane, well managed"
"slight paycuts"
"professional, collegial"
"tried to do the right thing by its associates, only to see a breathtaking lack of gratitude"
"compensation reductions are exceedingly modest"
"firms with creative management, not bound to the rigid ways of the past"
"pay cuts on the order of a few dollars a day"

I've been around long enough to recognize a blatant PR campaign. Normal people don't use buzz-words like "collegial" and "creative management" to describe law firms at this point, unless they're being ironic. It is clear that DLA firm management (or staff working at management's behest) has been posting here in defense of the firm. That might be fine -- defend the firm if you wish, but be honest about it rather than trying to pretend you are an ordinary associate who thinks this is no big deal.

It is no secret that DLA management is obsessed with Above the Law and what is posted here. The fact that management is taking the time to surreptitiously post here is simply embarassing.

Across-the board cuts not tied to billable hours make no sense. I don't even know if DLA Piper says decent practice groups, but if I was a busy propspering associate in Bankruptcy, IP, or even tax at DLA, I'd be gone. Even in this economy, there are some job openings in these areas. I have some friends who have lateralled and to better firms than they're at. Even top litigation associates who remain busy and manage to bring in lots of money for the firm are being fucked under this model.

As far as rates go, top performers justify a higher billing rate as well, and perhaps it's time for some individual variation in the rate at which associates are billed out at. And not just blanket billing by class year. At some firms, there already is.

248: It's clear the partners are in it for themselves. Sure, they'll eagerly mention their 20% cut in PPP, but, comparatively, that's nothing from their millions in draw and profit, especially when their loans and their childrens' college tuition has been paid years ago - and particularly if they're just sitting on their asses in departments that aren't in the least busy. They lack sufficient conscience to thin their own ranks and, instead, feel it's appropriate to show the door to associates and reduce the salaries of the remaining associates who are also expected to shoulder an increased work load. Not to mention, it isn't the associate billing rates on the retention letters that are keeping the clients away, but the $700/$800 obscene partner hourlies. The first big law firm to drastically reduce partner hourlies will see more business than they can handle and will create opportunities for us all. Or, perhaps, we should just form a firm of our own with one of the few partners of conscience. The way DLA is operating just can't be sustained much longer.

252: If there's one thing Piper management excels at, it's prevarication.

Of course partners are in it for themselves. Who the hell else would they be in it for? Associates are business tools. Use them when needed. Discard them when broken or no longer useful. For BigLaw associates, you bought into this with eyes wide open, unless you're dumb as a post. Be thankful that only your pay has been cut, because you at least still have a job and a paycheck. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else, or shut the fuck up.

Lee Miller & Dave Wannstedt - twins separated at birth. Both have lost control of their current teams

You can tell how collegial the firm is by the way the laid off associates describe receiving the communique from a flunky, hack, or "some staffer."

256: there is always the option of sitting on your ass and billing as little as possible while still collecting your shrunken paycheck. While I don't work at DLA, I would be seriously tempted to do exactly that. The only thing that stops most people is a sense of professionalism, but it appears even the facade of that is gone in this economy.

259, a 'sense of professionalism' may play some small part. But the majority of what stops people from sitting on their ass and billing no hours is the very realistic fear of getting fired.

You mentally ill weirdos need to get a grip!

A firm does the honorable thing (very slight salary cuts) to save jobs and you flip out? Maybe you would prefer the massive layoffs of the other elite firms? And have the stigma of a supposed perfomance related firing on your back?

256 = HR person or right thinking soon to be made partner associate? you decide!

Per the press release in March, partners took an 11.5% cut in their guarantees (high performers took less), whereas the vast majority of associates now have to give up 20%. This is not about the clients and all about the PPP.

The next thing you delusional 2 to 3 OCD mega posters will claim is that layoffs are not happening at the vault five firms, or that firms are not paying half the bonus of skaTTTen, or something. All firms are laying off, but some firms are doing creative things to reduce the pain. Those firms should be honored not reviled.

261: Nothing that DLA does is honorable, they have already done mass and stealth layoffs. They simply wait for other firms to take cost cutting measures, then follow suit thinking they can fly under the radar. When you are struggling as badly as DLA, honor has nothing to do with it.

Almost every firm has done some cost cutting. However, unlike those other firms, DLA has gone through every single cost cutting measure it could. They will continue to perform stealth layoffs and cut costs where they can to survive. But, if this economy continues for much longer then this firm is clearly done.

Yes, it is all about PPP. DLA's bank can call in the line of credit if partner profits fall below a certain threshold. Ideally management wanted to cut associate salaries by 30% to manage PPP, but seeing as how no other firm has slashed by that amount, they had to do 10/20%. So you can bet there will be more layoffs this year.

I look forward to the day when partners are cut from partnerships.

Any news on that front, Elie?

If you're being underpaid, you can prove it to DLA by switching jobs.

(I'm not just saying that sarcastically, given how low this is, that may very well be possible.)

If you find yourself unable to do so, consider the possibility that this may be inaccurate.

If that sounds harsh or like a dick thing to say--then just take a few seconds to think about everything you're doing to help staff members who've had their pay slashed or been fired and everything you've done to help classmates of yours who didn't get big law jobs, list all that stuff (how many people, to what extent), and then other people will have more sympathy for you.

If you want to leave because you're unhappy with your new salary and believe you are being underpaid, then leave. You're free to do so at any time. There are at least 100 people who would gladly take your job, and many of them will be just as good as you are. Don't kid yourself into believing otherwise.

And for those who took a 20% cut, do you seriously believe that you deserve full pay if you aren't coming close to meeting your hours? This is a business. The firm pays for work product, not because the partners owe you something. What exactly is fair about full time pay for part time work? You ought to be happy you are still employed. If you're not, you can resign at any time, and improve the job security of someone more deserving.

It is laughable how the people on this board think there are hundreds, if not thousands, of qualified attorneys who can step up to the plate for anyone that leaves a firm.

We aren't slinging hash here. This is a profession. Our profession is highly trained, including at least 7 years of college, professional testing, and continuing education. Those making such comments are free to feel of themselves as engaging in a job, but that isn't the case. If it was, clients would race to the bottom to find the lowest fees. The fact that clients still go to top firms and pay top rates for partners (albeit less than advertised rates for most institutional clients) means something.

And it also means something that a partner has put his/her trust in you to do the work for their client. All those relationships take time to establish, and a new attorney off the street simply cannot jump into the role immediately (this also doesn't take into account the fact that you have knowledge of your cases and matters that no one else does, and won't be replaced if you walk out the door tomorrow).

270-

seriously, get over yourself.

I say this as somebody who attended a top five school and is making six figures like everybody else here.

I'll freely admit a couple months of Barbri did more to train me for this job than all of my previous education combined (and I don't hold the Barbri in much respect).

Even in good times, a decent number of top 14 grads didn't get big law jobs and had to go work in public interest or some low paying firm job. You can keep telling yourself there's a big difference between them and you. There isn't.

If there is, you're free to prove it to your firm.

269 - I'm an 8th year with a Ph.D., so no, there are not 100 people who could step in and take my job.

Let's do some math -- I took a 20% cut and in your book I apprently did not deserve my pay which was $265k after the freeze and before the cut (now I'll make $210). I'm on pace for 1,800 hours and I'm billed out at $550. Thus, I'm on schedule to gross $990k to the partnership (about one third of which I originated myself). How am I not worth $265k? Fucking douchebag.

271 - 270 here

I am a patent litigation partner at an AMLaw 50 firm, graduated 1999 from a top law school magna cum laude, with a physics undergrad degree, and I make close to $400k a year, so these layoffs affect me not one iota. It just disappoints me to here fellow attorneys think of themselves as cogs in the machine. I think it is that attitude that contributes to law firms undercompensating associates in order to line the pockets of the partnership.

I personally voted against freezing associate salaries and cutting bonuses at my firm so that the slight drop in PPP could be made up by taking that money and paying equity partner bonuses.

Please continue to feel of yourself as fungible, however.

"I am a patent litigation partner at an AMLaw 50 firm, graduated 1999 from a top law school magna cum laude, with a physics undergrad degree"

Cool, but you're not the norm and you should fully realize that.

"Please continue to feel of yourself as fungible, however."

I don't find that being unrealistic (and especially being unrealistically arrogant) has ever helped me. That applies to here. It is a luxury some people can occasionally get away with. Once you can no longer afford that luxury, it's best not to keep pretending to yourself that you can.

272 - there are several firms in Silicon Valley, SF, and LA looking to expand, particularly if you have a $100k+ book. I would look there if I were you.

275 - thanks, I have spent the day doing just that, and have discussed relocation options with family. The only thing making me hesitate is having to take the darn Cal bar exam...

- 272

274 - there is a difference between recognizing that we are in a profession and being unrealistically arrogant.

Are times tough? Yes. Is someone making six-figures at a law firm better off than someone who just lost their job selling cars? Of course.

I really only have two points, and if I didn't get them across properly, that is my fault.

Those are:

1) We are in a profession. We should think of ourselves as such.

2) Any firm that is not paying an associate (or non-equity partner) between 30%-33% of collections is undercompensating.

275: Which firms?

273: Is your firm hiring?

This firm blows. Merged with everyone that would have them and became a McFirm. You get what you pay for. If I needed fast and cheap, I would go to DLA. Too bad they're not fast and they're not cheap. Surprised any client is willing to pay these inflated rates. Oh, wait, (lay-offs, pay freezes, capital calls, salary reductions, etc.), I guess clients are wising up and not paying these over inflated rates. Not much left for DLA to do, start closing shops and shedding partners (and more associates), and eventually fold up and just go away. And the world, will be a better place.

279 - no offer pwn3d and angry at the world much?

269 -

248 here. To the extent you are actually a DLA associate, you're exactly what allows the partners to think they can get away with this. Apparently we have just enough doormats to justify their belief. From dealing with some of the morons in my group, I'm VERY VERY confident DLA cannot easily replace me, and these people were hired back when DLA still paid the same as our competitors. Can they find someone off the street to sit in my chair? Of course.... Is that a replacement? Not even close...

I will be finding out tomorrow what my lateral opportunities are as I've already exchanged e-mails with a recruiter I know. The market in my area is hot and finding out what my value is to another firm is an area we certainly agree I should pursue, as I do know other firms value me significantly more than DLA does.

Perhaps you would get further in your career if you had some self confidence in your own abilities. Then again, such confidence is probably not justified in your case. So stay quiet and keep your head down. Maybe the axe will miss you again when layoffs round 2 come in a month.

277/222,

Where do you get this idea that associates deserve 30%-33% of collection? A competing view is that associates "deserve" what the market will bear. If a firm is compensating at under 30% of collections, and the market would pay more, the associate can take another job. If there are no other jobs paying 30% or above, how can you say that the associate deserves that share of revenues?

For whatever it's worth, it seems that DLA should be praised for being creative here to avoid firing associates.

282 -

30%-33% is what the market bears, and has beared for the last 30+ years. Not sure what role you have at DLA, but that is the economics of the situation, and has been for as long as big firms have been around, and before. Or I suppose McKenzie Group studies mean squat to you.

If you need proof, compare average billing rates over the last 20 years to average compensation. You will find the 30%-33% figure is spot on.

DLA certainly should not be praised for trying to race to the bottom. If they want praise, let go or seriously slash the compensation of the underperforming partners. The unfortunate fact is that the points were handed out at the beginning of the year, and only at the end of the year did DLA find out that the points alloted were far to generous for many of the partnership.

The only reason DLA is slashing associate salaries is because the firm cannot survive the next three months without the salary cuts they just handed out. They won't survive long anyway. The rainmakers will be lured to other firms that value the professional services of their associates, and accordingly have collegial offices with satisfied associates. Partners do not want to work in an atmosphere of disgruntled associates, believe it or not.

The good associates will move because they can (believe it or not, but there is still a lateral market out there in many practice areas), and the DLA offices will be left with those that couldn't leave. Those that can't leave will be far less productive, pushing DLA's bottom line down even further, forcing the rest of the partners with a book to jump ship.

This is exactly the anatomy of a firm collapse, about as clear as one can see.

283 - no one is moving anywhere. No one is hiring, much less hiring people who were not even able to maintain a market salary.

HTMFH

283,

It doesn't matter what the market could bear 20 years ago; the only question is what the market will bear now. The supply and demand dynamics have changed: the waves of layoffs in the profession of the past year have created a labor pool of available and experienced associates. As for new associates, with hiring projected to drop by as much as 90 percent, attracting talented but inexperienced labor isn't the challenge it once was.

Regarding your forecast of collapse, if you anatomy of the chain of events is so likely, DLA partners would have cut back on partner salaries rather than associate salaries.

283 seems unable to understand supply and demand, and is also unable to discern where the firms with collapsing PPP are at on the vault scale (hint: check the top of the charts son).

285 - partner salaries have already been cut.

Also, I've heard more layoffs at this firm are imminent.

287 -- where did you hear this?

287 here - I heard from a source and based on the fact that if they don't do it know - unlikley they will layoff with summers here.

Here's the problem with DLA -- they merged with every firm that said "'take me . . . take me." There was no quality control at all. None of us had ever heard of the firms we were merging with. The firms sucked. And the lawyers we merged with suck. And management thought simply putting everyone under one umbrella would make us this global law firm that clients would flock to and pay huge $$ for. It was a stupid idea in a good economy. It's real stupid when the economy falters. So now the firm is stuck with a huge overhead and lawyers that can't hold a candle to other lawyers that charge similar rates. Why would clients stay? There are a ton of better firms with similar rate, and even more firms that will do a better job for less. Why would future law students/associates come here? There are a ton of better places that pay more -- and if you can't get a job at one of those firms and instead you're going to be paid "below market" (which DLA now pays) -- might as well go to a place where people are happy (and better lawyers to learn from). Why would partners stay? Those with a book of business and connections in any industry will jump to a firm that can support their practice (with other partners that are of equal ability, and associates that are not disgruntled and excited to be there). So, what's left? A bunch of people who have no other options. Not a great place to work, and not a great place for a client to bring work.

DLA looks like it may fold, and seems to be following in the footsteps of Wolf Block. Associate salary cuts are among the last acts of a firm in the midst of collapse.

DLA Chicago litigation associate here, Sam Isaacson and Lee Miller should regularly check their desk drawers and offices, one of these days I just may defecate in a bag and happen to leave it for one of them. I encourage others to do the same. Of course, after a week or two of decomposition, it still would not stink as bad as Sam's and Lee's management skills or what they have done to associates via the salary cut. All of the associates plan to leave.

292 - Better a modest salary cut than a layoff.

293 -- I am leaving a bag for you as well. The salary cuts were not done to avert layoffs. If you have been recently let go, my sympathies and best wishes. Do not for a minute think that the firm took this course of action to avert layoffs.

293 - this isn't "modest" and DLA is doing both. This isn't either or, as you obviously know but choose to ignore.

DLA appears as if it is built on the quicksand of over-expansion, and associate salary cuts cannot overcome the strong pull of gravity for long.

290 nailed it.

To talented but disgruntled biglaw associates and former associates:

Open your own practices and undercut your former employers.

267 - numerous partners have been quietly asked to leave DLA Piper over the past several months - at least 30.

As far as additional associate layoffs at DLA Piper, anyone tracking at below 1600 hours for 09 (and there are lots of those folks - quite a few even tracking below 1200 - even after february's layoffs) is vulnerable, though final decisions have not yet been made.

HOFSTRA SUCKS COCK. And so does DLA.

I'm amazed that law students reading the comments sections on ATL *still* want to work in Biglaw.

It sounds like everyone's pretty miserable.

301 - the majority of the postings here are a few shit canned, bitter losers with OCD who still cannot believe a firm did not see their obvious talent. After all, mommy said they were special!

Does anyone know how the $160k patent lit starting salaries at DLA Piper were affected by these recent cutbacks?

Assuming that the angry yet very valuable associates are going to tender 2 weeks notice today, where would a recently laid off S&C associate send her resume?

asdfas

Thread closed.

Laid off epic failures trying to "hurt" their former firm with nasty comments are awarded zero points.

You do not want to send your resume to this firm. It is going under. This round of layoffs may not have saved the firm. Many partners think that the bank is going to call the firm's line of credit.

You do not want to send your resume to this firm. It is going under. This round of layoffs may not have saved the firm. Many partners think that the bank is going to call the firm's line of credit.

As one of the many who was laid off in February, I was a little apprehensive (understatement of the year) about finding a new job and losing my BigLaw salary... I landed on my feet in government, where the pay sucks but I work 9-5 and I love my job! SO GLAD the firm pushed me out, you couldn't pay me my old salary (frozen, minus 20%) to stay in that miserable hell hole!

As one of the many who was laid off in February, I was a little apprehensive (understatement of the year) about finding a new job and losing my BigLaw salary... I landed on my feet in government, where the pay sucks but I work 9-5 and I love my job! SO GLAD the firm pushed me out, you couldn't pay me my old salary (frozen, minus 20%) to stay in that miserable hell hole!

"I want to know the answer to what is perhaps an obvious question: Does anyone ever get to count on having an income? I was laid off from DLA, obviously I couldn't count on my job. I guess if I were there I couldn't even count on a specific salary. That's just bullshit. How are people supposed to ever make any sort of life/financial decisions?"

43 - Bullshit? What are you, like living in 1970s Japan? Why did you think you were getting lifetime employment? The answer to your question is simple. You don't live paycheck to paycheck, or even worse, on credit cards. When times are good you SAVE (!!!) and maintain an emergency fund...for emergencies, like getting laid off. Unless you have elderly parents or a spouse with some chronic medical condition sucking up your income or an analogous situation, I have zero sympathy for whining bitches.

FYI: There were MAJOR layoffs at DLA before this. Their main business was/is Commercial Real Estate. They just didn't do it on one 'black thursday" type date. They did one or two every few weeks or so for 6 months. That added up to about 20% of associates and staff gone. That's still a layoff in my book.

FYI: There were MAJOR layoffs at DLA before this. Their main business was/is Commercial Real Estate. They just didn't do it on one 'black thursday" type date. They did one or two every few weeks or so for 6 months. That added up to about 20% of associates and staff gone (in my best guess). That's still a layoff in my book.

303 Every associate took at least a 10% hit, including Patent Lit, and including associates on pace to bill 2400-3000 hours this year.

307-308 I seriously doubt the firm is going under, since they took early action when things started going south, and there have been no major partner defections that I know of. Partners going in house doesn't count. When any of the partners with sustainable books in my office start leaving to go to other firms, which hasn't happened yet, I'll get worried.

312-313 Of course Commercial Real Estate associates are gone. Partners in these groups are gone too. Every real estate practice has had this issue, and no one expects this work to come back strong any time soon.

DLA Piper is too big to fail.

Unless and until other major firms start cutting associate salaries, DLA will now be viewed as a second tier firm.

314, I think you're wrong. I vote that DLA Piper in a year looks nothing like the DLA Piper of today. If they're still around, they'll have something like a thousand fewer lawyers than they do now.

Has anyone heard anything about firms cutting their billing rates?

Has anyone heard anything about firms cutting their billing rates?

Piper Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe and DLA merged to create this hodgepodge mess. Separately, three mediocre regional firms with eyes bigger than their stomach ambitions to create a world wide juggernaut. Read the funny (in hind sight) 2004 ABA Journal story available on the firm's website You can find a link to the story on Burch's bio page. In the article Miller and Burch wax poetically about the "Plan" while extolling the "success" of the PM/RW merger. They should take that piece down, as it seems that the "Plan" has gone awry.

Could DLA be the next Finley Kumble?

I'm a long time DLA Piper staffer with many attorney friends at the firm from many offices. First, I feel very bad about the salary cuts and layoffs. It is difficult for anyone to reduce their monthly income or lose it all due to a layoff. Second, I have been with the firm during good and bad times when there were mass exodus of lawyers, voluntarily or by force. The firm, through its current and past leadership, has survived and prospered. Lee, Frank, Terry, and Nigel are outstanding leaders with unbelievable business sense. Lee will not allow this firm to disappear. There are way too many people at the firm, attorneys and staff alike, that together will move the firm forward and past these difficult economic times. DLA Piper is still one huge family and we all look out for each other. We will continue to be the best and largest law firm in the world for many more years to come. For those of you that still work at DLA Piper and speak so negatively about your colleagues and the firm leaders, I feel sorry for you. With attitudes like that, you should think about leaving and going somewhere else. For those of you that are not DLA Piper lawyers or staff, mind your own f*%$@&g business. :)

322 -

"One huge family"? Spare us your bullshit.

- former first-year associate laid off by DLA

322- I dont know what office you work in- but over here, people are only out for themselves. No one has your back. This is no family. Pull your head out of your fucking ass!