Nationwide Salary Cut Watch: Sonnenschein Has Had Enough of Lockstep
Just a few months ago, Sonnenschein was doling out seven-figure paydays to partners from the dissolving Thacher Proffitt & Wood. Today, the firm is cutting associate salaries.
But the firm has decided to take a major swing at lockstep compensation in the process. The official statement from managing partner Elliott Portnoy starts out with the highest ambitions:
Long before the current economic upheaval that has gripped our clients and profession, survey after survey consistently confirmed a common theme: law firm associates have become increasingly unhappy in their work. Indeed, an entire industry has arisen in the blogosphere, where websites detail — often hour by hour — concerns from associate lawyers around the country and in firms of all sizes and stripes.And yet, despite these warnings, the fundamentals of how most law firms recruit, develop, and compensate their associate lawyers have remained largely unchanged for too long — to the detriment of the current structure’s sustainability and, more importantly, to the professional reward and promise of our Associates.
As I discussed with you during today’s monthly Firmwide Associate Meeting, Sonnenschein is committed to meaningfully redesigning our relationship with our Associates. I am writing to outline the specific steps we will take together over the next eighteen months to translate our vision, and the key role Associates at Sonnenschein will continue to play in our shared future, into reality.
Hey, don’t blame it on the “blogosphere.” The industry was built this way when we found it.
More visions from Portnoy, after the jump.
After describing all the ways in which the American economy is terrible and the legal industry is fundamentally flawed, Portnoy gets down to the business of redesigning the law firm:
A Comprehensive RedesignWe have concluded after much deliberation that we must look beyond the realities of the current economic environment and make structural changes in our relationship with our Associates that will not only continue to give us greater resilience and flexibility in the near-term, but also position us to better meet the needs of Associates, Partners, and clients over the long-term.
I am writing to share with you Policy & Planning’s commitment to a comprehensive redesign of our relationship with Associates; to outline changes, some of which will take effect in 2009 and others of which will be implemented in 2010; and to ask for your support in shaping our new approach to hiring, developing, staffing, evaluating, and compensating Associates.
The memo then explains some core principles, general themes, and I think something about a Federation phaser (it’s a six-page memo). But part of the Sonnenschein plan is to keep the size of incoming classes small:
Refine Our Recruiting Approach. Our 2009-2010 Associate class already reflects our commitment to reducing first-year and summer class sizes. Our Associate Hiring Committee made this change prior to current market conditions, and we have concluded that smaller class sizes should be the norm going forward. Our recruiting efforts will continue to target outstanding law students and lateral candidates, and our recruiters will focus on recruiting a diverse set of candidates with the attributes most likely to make them successful at Sonnenschein. With fewer entry-level Associates, our newest colleagues will have access to a broader set of opportunities and greater mentoring from senior Associates and Partners.
You’ll remember that Sonnenschein already deferred most of its first year class to 2010. But nine lucky Sonnenschein first years have been pushed back to 2011 — with only a $10,000 deferral stipend. Believe them when they talk about their commitment to reducing first year class sizes.
For associates already in the pipeline, there is this news:
Reduce the Associate base salary scale, while providing opportunities for high performers to exceed current compensation levels. Like many of our competitors, we have concluded that there is an imperative to reduce and align Associate compensation with the needs of our clients and the economic realities of our industry and Firm. We do not do so lightly. Having monitored the marketplace, listened to clients, and engaged in discussions with Associates, our new approach will preserve jobs consistent with our commitment to create opportunities for our Associates to thrive and advance at Sonnenschein….The net effect will be to reward our highest performing Associates — at levels that can exceed their current compensation — while reducing our cost structure in ways that will give us flexibility to better meet the needs and changes our clients are seeking. In the next few days, each Associate will receive a memorandum that provides information on their individualized base salary for the balance of the year. Our first year Associate base salary under the new approach will be set at $145,000 in most of the cities in which we operate, and the salary levels for the balance of our Associate classes vary by year and geography consistent with our standard practice.
Sonnenschein is ranked #62 according to Vault. Very few of the firms that are ranked similarly have reduced associate salaries. Of course, very few firms are visionary.
But these salary cuts only apply to the balance of 2009. In 2010, well, who knows what will happen:
In 2010, we will complete the development and implementation of a new relationship with our Associates through several complementary initiatives:Shift the Associate salary structure away from a lockstep, law school class to a performance and merit-based system. The time has come to move away from the traditional method of compensation for Associates. I appreciate the input of the Associates Committee, and the extensive participation of Associates during the recent listening sessions held by the Legal Development Committee in each of our offices. We are fortunate to have an extraordinarily talented group of Associates, and believe the traditional approach tied to law school graduation year is outmoded, inconsistent with professional services industry compensation structures, misaligned with client interests, and no longer consistent with our commitment to rewarding our highest performing Associates.
Accordingly, today we are accelerating our efforts begun last year to move toward a performance and merit-based compensation and promotion system for Associates.
We expect to share later this year a new performance-based system for implementation in 2010. We envision this system will be one in which advancement more closely relates to personal skills development and client service, with variable compensation representing a higher proportion of total Associate compensation so that our high performing Associates have the potential for accelerated advancement and above-market total compensation.
If you ever wanted to work at a firm where a first-year can make more than a fifth-year, here’s your chance.
Interestingly, it seems that Sonnenschein really wants to be a market leader for killing lockstep compensation:
This holistic approach to our relationship with our Associates is the right path to be pursuing, and I am proud that Sonnenschein will help lead the way for our profession. We will create a more realistic, comprehensive, and variable compensation structure that better positions our Firm to avoid the typical law firm response of sharpened pencils and reductions the moment client demands or workload needs contract. With our new approach to recruiting, staffing, training, mentoring, and advancement, we will be far more nimble. Most importantly, we will enhance the professional development path, and career security and satisfaction, that is the priority I have heard about most from many of you.
As people try to digest Sonnenschein’s market leading changes, there is really only one question that springs to mind:
Read the full memo below.
Redesigning Sonnenschein’s Relationship with Our Associates [PDF]
Sonnenschein announces associate pay cuts, performance-based compensation system [National Law Journal]
Earlier: For Whom the Sun Still Shines (Thacher Partners Joined Sonnenschein for Seven-Figure Paydays)




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
first
This firm still doesn't suck half as much as DLA Piper, Rudnick, Wolff, Grey Cary, Finch, Ware, Everybody and Anybody.
Isn't this the firm that deferred 1st years to January 2011 and offered only a $10,000 stipend?
The ship be sinking...
This just shifts more of the burden and pressure on the associates while reducing Partner overhead. If Sonnenschein wants to step up and compare the compensation pool under a normal lock-step system to this "holistic approach" and the figures balance out then I have no problem.
But everyone knows that will never happen.
Nice try Sonnenschein but no one is going to follow suit.
This is a big middle finger to the Associates that work at Sonnenschein.
This article reminded me of the new Star Trek movie. I really liked it. The movie, that is. You should see it.
I am unemployed. Therefore I said "yes" to the poll question.
Translation: With the exception of one associate, we are going to cut everyone's salary in a random fashion whilst pinning the term "merit" to our actions.
Also: I have to tell law students who interview with my firm that the being a super star is the product of extremely small, arbitrary process that has little to do with merit, accomplishments, or even smarts. Having supervised brand new associates, the work product of a "golden boy" was basically interchangeable with the work product of 90 percent of the other random first years. When a batch of attorneys walk in the door, you're all pretty much the same. Aside from the obvious controversial reasons, I can't put a finger on why someone ends up being the golden boy. It just happens. And more likely than not. You won't be.
If you're lucky enough to start, you need to start looking for another job within the first 1-2 of being there.
-Girl Friday Turned Partner.
This is a memo about changing the partner-associate relationship, but I'm calling shenanigans. Everyone knows that, in the partner-associate relationship, the associate get shits on by the partner in exchange for cash. Reading the excerpts from the memo above, two things become clear (1) the associate is now going to get significantly less cash and (2) because they intend to hire fewer associates, the associate is going to get shit on significantly harder.
Why even present this to the associates?
Welcome to the real world . . . .about time someone shifted the model to something that actually makes financial sense
SCOOPED BY AUTOADMIT.
PWN3D!
1,
Good job on first, but the new Star Trek movie is more fun.
good for them. as an biglaw associate who regularly bills over 2800 hours annually, I've had it with getting the exact same comp as my slacker colleagues who bill 1000 hours less.
"without only a $10,000 deferral stipend"? Huh? Please moderate.
Wow, a law firm decides to pay on merit. For those people thinking this is such a bad thing, name me one other non-unionized private industry that pays employees exactly the same amounts based solely on length of service.
1 here-That's the first time I got to be first. . . .I just fired it off quick and laid back with the afterglow of satisfaction, not caring about others' pleasure
I wonder if they will only raise associate bill rates from year to year based on performance and merit...
13: Ha! Those 2800 will not equal more money because dollars to donuts they are coming to cook up some random, nit picky issue, put it in your review, and screw you. I've seen this done numerous times. Any discretion on our parts will inevitable be used to fuck you over. Partners have summer homes to pay for...
-Girl Friday Turned Partner
Speaking of Star Trek, why is it that red matter looks like a giant blob of cherry flavored Jell-O?
I always wondered why Sylar had pointy ears and a fishbowl haircut in the Star Trek movie.
In fact, I thought that the guy who played Kirk was in a Dune movie as a Fedaykin. Without the blue on blue eyes, I couldn't be sure.
This is not bad if you are a superstar. Like ME.
Newsflash: This midwesTTTern firm is not the first to do this. Atlanta's worsTTT law firm® McKenna Long & Aldridge did something like this last year (as well as cut associate salaries as reported here). Some of my friends here get paid less than people three years below them and would be out the door but for the economy.
13,
That just shows how dumb you are. Your colleagues are billing 1000 hours less than you and making the same amount of money . . . and they have lives! But I'm sure you have fun shopping online, visiting porn sites 5 mins a day, and having no friends.
Michael Moore just had a stroke.
Hi, 7 - I'm also unemployed and thus answered yes to the poll. I'd rather work for Sonnenschein than sit around waiting to declare bankruptcy.
~ 2005 grad with honors, law review, never a bad review as an associate and very unemployed.
Honestly, this memo is so full of shit that I'd be enraged if I received such a disrespectful memo.
Just come out and say that you're cutting salaries but allowing bonuses for high performers. Don't call it "redefining the firm's relationship with associates." You lowered your summer class because you overhired, not because you're "committed to the development and mentoring of your junior associates." The firm took 3 pages to say what it could've said in 2 paragraphs.
Stop trying to spin it, we're not idiots.
The crystal structure of Cu2(OH)3Cl has been refined using two nearly stoichiometric natural specimens. The occurrence of a triclinic polymorph is suggested for pure Cu2(OH)3Cl, while clinoatacamite is found for small but significant impurity concentrations.
17,
This. C'mon people, this isn't merit pay, it is an unevenly distributed pay cut for all.
Spiro Agnew would be the top paid associate hands down
Stopped reading this drivel after the third sentence -- what a bunch of blowhards... no wonder this is an also ran firm....
Hello guest. (Not you? Log out.)
After submitting a comment it may take several minutes to appear. Please only submit your comment once.
Comment removed by moderator.
28 has it right. take all the money that sonnenchein was paying associates last month, and put it in a pile. call it pile A.
now take all the money they will pay associates under this plan, and put it in another pile. call that pile B.
does anyone really think pile B will be bigger than pile A? does anyone really think it will be close?
If they are so in touch with "the market" why in the hell did they take on the Thacher Proffitt zombies? The latest article of The Economist has an excellent in-depth article on the future of securitization and basically concludes that volume of securitizations will be substantially reduced for the foreseable future, maybe forever.
It sounds to me like Sonnenschein associates are subsidizing a dead industry.
"You'll only be paid at market if you have the appropriate mixture of competence and connections. AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!!!"
Elie MysTTTal to 290 (lbs)
23 - What makes you think that someone billing 2800 can turn down work and keep their job?
I was one of the people clicking "yes" to the poll. I'm guessing me and the other 20% are the ones who believe we're worth it. I'm confident in a true merit based system, I'd be near the top associates in my ranks. I'm sending a resume in to this firm...and I still have my job, recent stellar review and all.
C'mon people - man up. Time to earn what you make, and make what you earn.
The red matter looked a lot like a red plastic ball, but still excelled compared to the cheesiest center of the earth drill this side of Junkyard Wars. Nevertheless, my 13 year old loved it. He also loved the Bob consultants in the movie The Office, and one wonders if the Sonnenschein associates in the Listening Sessions got to watch it before or after they were waterboarded.
In today's modern law firm, grunt work like doc review is being farmed out to contract attorneys. The contract attorney gets paid squat, then the firm bills the client for three times squat, possibly four times squat. This is far, far more profitable to the partners than having highly paid associates do the same work. As a result, fewer and fewer associates will be needed. It will be like the way things were 30 to 40 years ago, when there was little in the way of mindless doc review, and law firms hired very few new associates each year. The world be changing, and new lawyers today are getting caught in ass end of it, but what's so bad about that. Most new associates in BigLaw are only in the business for the money, so tough shit.
The world is changing.
I feel it in the water
I feel it in the earth
I smell it in the air
Much that once was is lost,
or none now live who remember.
This is bad news. Hopefully just for Sonnenschein, but I'm sure other firms will follow. Getting rid of lockstep just means there will be even less transparency regarding associate salaries. Before there was a baseline standard which everyone had to meet and those that excelled received bonuses. "Merit based" just means there will be no baseline. Also, they can now get rid of bonuses because your reward is getting an allegedly higher salary (maybe, after all how would you know) than the slacker next door.
Look for it only in History Books.
It is a Civilization Gone With The Wind.
33.-
No, and what makes you think it should be? We're in a recession.
It's about goddamn time. The closest analogous industry (consulting) has been doing this for years and it's been working out pretty well.
A better model would be to eliminate class year distinctions altogether, and promote based on skills and experience, like any other logical industry.
"And yet, despite these warnings, the fundamentals of how most law firms recruit, develop, and compensate their associate lawyers have remained largely unchanged for too long -- to the detriment of the current structure's sustainability and, more importantly, to the professional reward and promise of our Associates."
And by "to the detriment of the current structure's sustainability," we mean partners making more and more money every year even though business is slow.
What would you expect from a firm that would pay millions to Steve Kudenholdt, Paul Tvetenstrand, and the rest of their slack-jawed posse of bonehead douchebags???
38, you're incredibly dumb. Like shockingly dumb.
The macho stuff is a joke. You're not any better than anyone else. Seriously. And you will be fucked over.
There was a land of Bonuses and Billable Hours called the Big Law. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Partners and their Associates, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization Gone with the Wind…”
Nice try, Sonnenschein. Mariah Carey sang it first:
I had a vision of love
And it was all that you've given to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSd08_ceDj8
I call BS on this. (and seriously, is the sky falling? WTF Vault firms??? If this turns into an epidemic I will personally flip).
The whole point behind Lock Step is that it improves the firm culture. When associates are worried that their base pay, or a significant portion of their total pay (through bonus or whatever) is tied to some arbitrary "performance metric" things don't go well. That "eat what you kill" theory is what causes firms to turn against themselves, to cause work hoarding and backstabbing, and generally to make your place into CWT v2.0. Up till this year, seemingly, nobody wanted to BE CWT 2.0.
Now, with the thin vineer of "cost cutting" every firm is basically reverting to kill-or-be-killed mode with its associates. But in five years when the cultures at those firms have devolved so far that the partners can't stand to talk to each other and every person in the firm is just waiting for a better ($$$) offer to come along to bolt... then the firms will stand around and complain about the loss of the culture and collegiality.
Collegiality is dead you SOBs and you killed it.
They should just call this memo "Portnoy's Complaint."
44 -
Hey, I don't have anything against merit based pay, in theory. But when a firm switches to "merit-based" pay in a recession, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that what they really mean is "massive pay cuts."
Let me put it to you this way - if Sonnenschein thought they could get away with lockstep starting at $50K, then suddenly there would be nothing wrong with lockstep pay in their mind. This isn't about whether merit is better than lockstep. It's about a struggling firm that is taking the hatchet to associate salaries. By doing it this way, they're hoping the discussion will be about "merit based pay," rather than "ZOMFGROTFLCOPTER Sonnenchein is teh TTT!!!!!!1oneone"
Maybe others will be fooled. Not me.
Portnoy's right. This is the way of the future. Doesn't effectively hide the fact that his firm is hurting and treated its people poorly ($10K for 9 3L's to live a year on???), but this is probably a good step.
Associate A is faced with a choice...firm one says: "if you bill x, you get y$. Also, we'll give you more alittle more $ if you go the extra mile and we like you." Firm two says: "we pay our associates based on 'merit' and promise we will take care of you if you are good." Imagine it's 2011 or 2012 and associate A has choices. Where's she going?
The world is changing.
I feel it in the water
I feel it in the earth
I smell it in the air
Much that once was is lost,
or none now live who remember.
Associate A is faced with a choice...firm one says: "if you bill x, you get y$. Also, we'll give you more alittle more $ if you go the extra mile and we like you." Firm two says: "we pay our associates based on 'merit' and promise we will take care of you if you are good." Imagine it's 2011 or 2012 and associate A has choices. Where's she going?
Théoden:
So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?
Aragorn:
Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them.
Théoden:
For death and glory.
If Associate A went to a top law school, he won't be looking at Sonnenschein.
better than LATHAM
44:
You are very, VERY confused about the associate payment models at consulting firms (at least the top ones).
You see, firms used to use the "market" as a floor, supplemented by bonuses. Now you are looking at the new ceiling.
Sonnenschein's actions are prudent. The economy has not hit bottom; only the rate of descent has slowed. The demand for legal services will not increase until the second quarter of 2010.
What a craptastic firm. Don't tell me that you began making changes in incoming class sizes before the market downturn. You RESCINDED offers to your summers and incoming attorneys at the start of the downturn. And now you pat yourself on the back for it? I'm not sure I'd brag about "leading the market" in a race to the bottom. Don't worry the associates won't forget that you're a market leader when they pick any insurance defense that will hire them rather than Sonnenschein.
There memo says plenty about improving the relationship with associates by cutting SALARIES.
It says nothing about improving the relationship with associates by cutting BILLABLE HOUR REQUIREMENTS!
Smells like a bullshit fluff job to me.
Missing in all of this is any discussion of reducing hourly rates and/or reducing billable hours. Destroying the model has more than one variable. Paying 10% of your worker bees better than market also does little to address the perceived unhappiness of which these folks speak.
Agree totally that pile B is smaller than pile A. And, if, in the end pile B is smaller than pile A everyone this is only a good thing for a very few.
13--doing 2800 hours of document review doesn't count...
What a disappointing pile of lobbyist double speak.
50, if lockstep is so great (promotes collegiality, blah blah blah), please name me one other non-unionized private industry that pays all their employees the same based on their seniority alone.
Or I suppose biglaw is the only industry with such great "firm culture" where everyone is friendly and nobody is cutthroat?
Send in the clowns
the real problem with this is the same problem that has always existed at Sonnenschein ... "merit" pay as practiced there gives the partners too many ways to screw associates based upon all kinds of considerations (their own pocket book) rather than the associate's own merit.
Judgement on "true" merit requires a mix of efficiency and competency.
Until firms move from the billable hour, they cannot install a system that rewards on "true" merit.
There memo says plenty about improving the relationship with associates by cutting SALARIES.
It says nothing about improving the relationship with associates by cutting BILLABLE HOUR REQUIREMENTS!
Smells like a bullshit fluff job to me.
51 -
"Portnoy's Complaint." That's just classic!
40 -
By "today's modern firm" you must mean "law firms, as have existed the past 20 years," because contracting out doc review to temp attorneys and billing temps' hours at junior associate rates is not new. The temporary attorney industry has been very large for a very long time.
51 -
Here's an avatar for you.
whats the "associate secondment program" mentioned in the memo?
lockstep pay = ivy league affirmative action.
Sonnenschein will be defunct in < 10 years.
Guarantee it.
This will happen at Orrick in July. Mark my words.
Yes, it's time to compensate people for the quality of work they do instead of paying them not to perform. This is a great move and should be adopted by the entire industry. It will actually go a long way in dismantling the law industry elitist mentality and we will actually see who the better lawyers are when these ivy league people are put on an equal footing with people from "lesser" appreciated law schools
This is a smart move. Well managed firms will stop pretending the boom times are still here, and try to reflect the economic reality we are all facing.
Good luck to those of you at firms still denying reality and pretending 160K to start is viable. Those firms will lose rainmakers to better managed shops.
What will happen is that partners will fight tooth and nail to increase comp for their own associates. As associates, you will need to align quickly with the most powerful partners. If you are in a niche or unpopular practice, you are doomed, no matter how much a superstar you may be.
I would be more accepting of this if a firm had a reputation for taking care of associates when time was good. A firm that defers that long for that little shows that its intentions are the opposite.
38 - why are you wasting time playing internet tough guy in blog comments - don't you have an lsat to study for?
No one coming out of law school deserves $145,000 a year (or whatever the rate is now.) You're not a lawyer, you're a law student with a JD and hopefully, a bar license. It'll take years to become a good lawyer so your salary SHOULD be based on your peformance and how good youreally are. This post is from an attorney who's been out 20 years and is amazed to witness the whining and gnashing of teeth about the poor associates (of which, through life and circunstance, I am still one) and their diminishing salaries. Get over it or open your own firm and do it your way.
83 - I drink your milkshake.
38
84 - You are my hero. Do you want to touch my circunstance?
Who the fuck does Portnoy think he is fooling? Sonnenschein isn't doing this to boost morale, but because they are getting hammered. They were a weak firm before the recession and really had no business trying to keep up with the big players who made the raises a couple of years ago. Even in its home city of Chicago they are considered a third tier firm, at best. Sonnenschein has played around with its associates money for years. They used to do holdbacks on pay a few years ago and only stopped once it triggered an exodus. Right now, there are few enough open spots so they don't need to worry about it, but when things pick up again there will be another exodus. That is, assuming Sonnenschein doesn't go bust first.
84 - if you've been at this 20 years, you probably never had, or paid off long ago, your student debt. Us youngins will be paying off our worthless educations for 30 years. So eat it.
It appears that Sonnenschein is built like a Szechuan apartment tower.
This firm's very existence, like that of Latham and DLA, makes me so angry and troubles me so much, that I feel the need to vent about it on this website.
Well this firm will never again be able to attract "top talent" because of these actions
Disguising a paycut as "visionary". What a fucking asshole.
The Sonnenschein DC office (douche Portnoy's home base) is the most toxic shithole imaginable. It has had insane associate turnover since the early oughts--no one enjoyed having a huge chunk of their salary being "held back" until April or May of the next year. I feel sorry for the poor bastards stuck in that Fifth Circle of hell.
This will not improve quality of life one bit unless billable hours are cut. In fact, it will lessen quality of life because associates will have less money.
Merit pay = hoarding work at all levels and padding hours.
The visionary thing to do would be to just hand out pay cuts like adults and retain lockstep comp. One of the major effects of this recession will be to highlight the separation between the top tier and the second tier. Sonnenschein should just face up to its position and pay accordingly.
The real losers in this? (Aside from the associates subject to the visionLESS leadership)... Sonnenschein's clients. As a midlevel associate at Sonnenschein, I can gaurantee that I'll be coming in around 10, leaving around 6, and billing 14-16 hour days whenever I can get away with it so that I'll be one of the 'meritorious' attorneys. Let's face facts: a government imposes a sales tax on a business, they pass the cost on to the consumer. Sonnenschein is imposing a tax in the form of a salary cut on me, and to make that up I'm going to pass the cost onto the clients I bill whenever I can get away with it.
84,
You're a moron. You think the firms were giving 160 K b/c students "deserved" it, as if it's some graduation gift? Partners just woke up one day and felt the need to unload some cash? Don't be stupid. A-Rod doesn't make 25m/yr b/c Steinbrenner loves him. Firms think, right or wrong, that bringing in top law students matters; it was a business decision then and it is one now.
This is not about who deserves what and how you have 20 years of experience and graduating law students don't.
If this is a new paradigm - and that is the buzz phrase these days - then shouldn't we recognize the new reality and accordingly reduce the billable hour requirements? Or maybe, you know, reduce billing rates to increase the likelihood that associates can actually meet the 2,000 billable requirements?
It's just shocking to see the drivel being spewed by supposed leaders at these firms. It shows just how little regard they have for the intelligence of their associates. I think we'd all prefer to be kicked in our metaphorical balls and be told that it's about paying the mortages on the partners' summer homes. At least we'd know the we were being told the truth.
On a somewhat related note, I'd like to thank DLA Piper for beginning this crusade. This piece of shit firm was never a market leader, but now it can finally legitimately claim that title.
NYC to 190!
What partner "deserves" to make $2 million/year?
They're cutting salaries and telling associates that they're doing it for their benefit. I know Portnoy is a Rhodes scholar, so he's obviously smarter than all of his associates, but are you fucking kidding me, pal?
What are you doing for the associate? Are you lightening their billable requirements? Lowering rates, so as to attract more clients and make this pay cut something other than a partner money grab? Entering into more fixed fee or other creative fee arrangements with clients? Offering more opportunities for substantive experience by encouraging pro bono work or allowing small matters to come through the doors a a big firm? Better benefits? Free coffee? Two-ply ass paper?
I mean, what is good about this for the associate??? Seriously, WHAT, GODDAMMIT?!?!
If my firm were to pull this crap, and I were to make anything less than people who graduated from law school the same year as me, I'd leave. It would be a clear sign that I'm not going to make partner, and that I'm not valued highly enough.
Before everyone tells me that there would no opportunities for me elsewhere, I don't believe it. I'm a HYS mid-level litigator in DC, and if I got a pay cut at my firm, suddenly a 9-5 government job would look a lot more appealing.
I work in Chicago and graduated from law school 9 years ago. Back in the late 1990s, Sonnenschein was viewed as a crap firm and as a shitty place to work. If anything, its reputation has gotten worse over the last decade. This firm had two rounds of layoffs within the last year, so it should be obvious to all that this firm is really struggling and is making this move to substantially reduce overall associate salaries.
101 -- you obviously didn't read the memo. They're redesigning their relationship with associates. It doesn't get much more concrete than that.
Yay for a redesigned associated experience -- how awesome for associates! Bring on the pay cut!
103, you're sorely mistaken. Sonnenschein is built to last, and will not falter, especially after solidifying its relationship with associates by drastically cutting their pay.
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHY CLIENTS GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT ASSOCIATE SALARIES ARE????? WHY DO PARTNERS AT FIRMS JUSTIFY SALARY CUTS BY SAYING SHIT LIKE AFTER DISCUSSING WITH OUR CLIENTS AND TO MEET CLIENTS EXPECTATIONS WE ARE CUTTING SALARIES? WHAT BS
It was an imaginary conversation with Shitenstein's imaginary clients.
17, having worked at a firm that didn't do lockstep, I can tell you with 100% certainty that billing rates did vary by salary. Why wouldn't you think so?
106 -- It's really quite simple. As a client, wouldn't you be happier if the partners were making $1.8 million and the associates were making $120,000, than if the partners were making $1.5 million and the associates were making $160,000? Of course you would be. It really doesn't need much more explanation than that.
106 - Because clients pay the bills. Clients will pay top dollar for the best legal minds in the firm, but it is a choker for them to pay $400 an hour for newly minted lawyers so that firms can pay said newbies more (in some cases) than the inhouse lawyers that hire them.
What this means is that "We here at SN&R (seriously, who can fucking spell the name of this firm) want to undo this horrendous merger (AKA, pick up the assets of TPW and none of los liabilidades) and we now want to pay everyone jack shit. Not just shitty wages. But we's gonna pay Jack Shit. Sonnenschein, I'm gonna stick my foot where the sundon'tshine
McDermott will be cutting associate salaries soon.
Do they really think that star associates are dumb enough to fall for the "salary cut today" with a promise that top performers MAY be rewarded with above market pay in 6+ months? Spare me.
If they were serious about distinguishing between associates, they could do it now, and give the top 10-20% raises as they cut everyone else. They are just trying to avoid a flight from busy practices before new associates start.
In January they will decide that lockstep, at the reduced (and frozen for another year?) rates within each office/department is better for morale, and no one will get an exceptional raise. For every 5 possible partnership slots ,10 mid/senior strong performers will be told that they are stars and encouraged to stick around at the low rates to make the "big bucks" as partner. They will be reminded that they have spent 5-7 years developing relationships, and that they shouldn't sacrifice that for short term gain.
Anyone that falls for this shouldn't be working on important matters.
78 is right.
Orrick has not so secretly hinted about their intention to implement something exactly like this for awhile now. They started even before the 12+% layoffs at the firm.
109- You are an idiot. Clients don't give a fuck about anything other than how much comes out of their pocket. They don't care if the firm uses the fees to pay the partners, pay the associates or run a crackhouse.
106 - You obviously either don't practice law or don't have clients. When associate salaries raised to $160k, many clients bitched that 1st year law students were making more than they were as in-house attorneys and they were 10 years out. Then they added clauses to their retention letters that forbade us to use 1st years on any billable matter without their written permission, which they never gave. This past year they demanded 10-15% discounts off of all 2008 rates and prohibited any rate increases. And to make that work, we're supposed to do what? keep paying $160k to first-years we can't bill for? Like any other business, when clients pay less, workers make less? Equity partners at Sonnenschein last year made far less than they were slated to earn, while contract partners and associates made 100% of what they were slated to earn. Go find another business that under those circumstances would continue to pay the same wages to the people who don't bring in business while paying less to their biggest revenue generators. So, should Sonnenschein cut salaries across the board by something as stupid as class year, or should it actually pay better associates more money. If you prefer the firms that adjust to changing economy by refusing to manage the bottom line, or by paying their underperformers more than their stars, go work for one - it won't survive very long in this economy. If you ever worked in some other industry and come back to law, you'll understand why the expectations of young associates are so misguided.
I'd rather have Baron Harkonnen pull out my heart plug and bugger me while life ebbed away than work for Sonnenschein.
I would have more respect for the firm if they would have just said what everyone knows--that they are up to their eyes in shit and are going to crash unless they cut pay. It is insulting to their associates for this Portnoy clown to state that this was done to make the associates happier, and because it was it grew out of client demand. Clients only care what they pay, and not what is done with their money once it is out of their hands. Portnoy must not be very bright to think that everyone won't see this for a fat steaming crock of shit.
Which firm is going to put an associate in front of the client as a first year? How else will the prove their merit? Corporate clients have expressly told Big Law that they are no longer willing to subsidize the cost of training inexperienced associates who will only fuck up their multi million dollar cases.
Big Law is collapsing under its own weight, and from the overpriced incompetent lawyers I have seen, they kind of deserve it.
This memo is a great representation of Elliott's crap from which even partners are not immune. Obviously, it's completely BS in view of the various inconsistencies. The really sad thing is that EP must actually think we believe it. News flash EP: we're not idiots.
ET's formula is simple: sacrifice everything to raise PPP and blame it on the economy. It's no secret EP's goal is to bring SNR into the top 50. He was quoted claiming 2009 would be a banner year. Perhaps it will be, but the inevitable mass exodus that will occur when mobility is less impaired will cause SNR to shrivel up and die.
72/74 - oh the good old high school days
I'm not overly impressed with this guy's writing. He is a Rhodes Scholar??
Sure, coming out of law school with little to no experience and making 160k at the client's expense is effed up. The problem with SNR's move, however, is that first years experienced the smallest percent cut in pay!! WTF???????????
116/idiot
"Equity partners at Sonnenschein last year made far less than they were slated to earn, while contract partners and associates made 100% of what they were slated to earn."
That's the very defintion of a partner. When partners make more, associates don't see crap. It's partners who are charged with the duty of keeping associates busy. If they can't accomplish it, then they're incompentent. To the extent associates received hours-based bonuses last year for the money they brought in the door, good for them. If this didn't trickle up to the partners in charge because their other partners are incompetent, it's the partners in charge who should take the hit. Hell, I'd love to kick several incompetent partners out of SNR, but I can't. I'm an associate. As of today, I'm an associate with no incentive to bill more than the bare minimum.
Damn. I actually used to like working here. Next!
"law firm associates have become increasingly unhappy in their work"
Obviously, the remedy for this is to cut salaries and pitch a phantom bonus system that provides zero possibility for budgeting/goals.
As if the economy wasn't subjecting attys to enough uncertainty, this clown found a way to provide even less! Short-sighted indeed.
"Like many of our competitors, we have concluded that there is an imperative to reduce and align Associate compensation with the needs of our clients and the economic realities of our industry and Firm."
"many" = 2 other firms. Nice.
"needs of our clients" = no change in billing rates.
Result = higher PPP
"We...believe the traditional approach [of compensating you in view of each additional year of experience] tied to law school graduation year is outmoded, inconsistent with professional services industry compensation structures misaligned with client interests. [However, your billing rate in view of each additional year of experience will continue to be raised annually based on your school graduation year.]"
"incompentent" - is that when you pee in your pants? If so, that describes the typical Sonnenschein partner on my floor.
Welcome to my nightmare.
i think if most of us are honest, we all agree that the current Biglaw model is flawed. Basically, it is a ridiculous system whereby:
1. A v100 firm associate is paid the same base salary as a Cravath/S&C/DPW associate.
2. Firms spend outrageous amounts of money on their summer associate programs (it is absurd that that SAs are paid $3000 a week to eat at fancy restaurants).
3. Firms have huge first year classes, with ridiculously high starting salaries (these first years don't know anything and can't do anything).
4. The increase in salary is tiny, compared to ability (a 3rd year associate can run a deal but is only paid 15% more than a first year who doesn't know anything).
5. Hours requirements/expectations are painfully high, so associates' lives are miserable and most of them can't wait to leave as asap.
6. Attrition rates are really high, and by the 6th/7th year, if you are not one of the very few who make partner, you are pushed out.
This is a ridiculous and flawed system. If all the above are fixed, our entire industry would be greatly improved.
1. Firms should not aim to pay the same - a firm with higher PPP should pay more than a firm with lower PPP.
2. SAs should be paid a reasonable salary and made to do proper work. A few nice events or meals can be thrown in as a bonus.
3. First year classes should be reduced in size, and the starting pay should be reduced (say, 140K).
4. The increase each year should be higher.
5. Hours requirements/expectations should be reduced.
6. There should be generally available alternatives to partnership. If you don't make partner at 8th year, you can become Counsel or "Managing Associate" or something like that. You can stay on doing this indefinitely, but your salary won't increase much from this point onwards. So basically, you will earn a little more than an 8th year associate until you retire.
If these steps are taken, the whole model will change. Associates won't bitch as much about starting at a lower salary, if they know they can continue doing this for 15 or 20 years, as opposed to having to rush to pay off their loans and save in the few years in Biglaw before getting pushed out. Attrition will also fall dramatically, so firms won't need huge incoming classes. Firms and clients will benefit because generally there won't be that many clueless junior associates doing work, but rather experienced and happier 12th year associates.
Did you know? The tomato is the world's most popular fruit.
Love my govt job. We started drinking at work today at 3:30 because a guy got promoted and brought in beer and wine for the whole office. I have a four-day weekend for Memorial Day, and my job consists of writing policy- and constitution-heavy briefs with almost complete freedom of style, content, and strategy. I go to the gym everyday for an hour whenever I feel like it, and no one ever looks at me funny for using a vacation day.
I graduated in 2005, and in since then have reduced my student debt load from 110K to 60K while still living a great lifestyle in DC.
The big firms turned me down in law school. Oh well.
I applaud Sonnenschein for this move.
115 -- Nice detection of sarcasm.
116 -- Your point would be all well and good, except that Sonnenschein isn't just reducing first year salaries.
And, it's beyond me why clients were so hopping mad about a first year SALARY. Shouldn't they be concerned about first year RATES? Or is all corporate decision-making governed by spitefulness of in-house counsel, who is making less than his outside lawyers? And, aren't first year RATES controlled by, uh, Sonnenschein?
As for client forced rate reductions, I'm not aware of them at my firm. I've heard of rate freezes, which at least, in part, explain the pay freezes.
In addition, your complaint that equity partners took a hit last year is inconsistent with the rest of your post. If equity partners took a hit, then the justification for the salary cut is really boosting PPP, and not about pleasing some angry GC who's making less than Joe 3L and is slashing your rates because of that.
If you're really a partner, just tell associates that the equity people took a hit last year, rates are at a stand-still, and the firm needs to further reduce costs in order to prevent a flight of capital and firm collapse. I don't see any of those straightforward and honest points in your post or the Portnoy nonsense.
Are all attorney salaries being cut across the board? If so, how do you seriously initiate a merit based program with a universal cut? Irony meter way up? SNR is proficient at issuing words on paper that seem real pretty and proper but that don't amount to much in their actual work environment. Lobbyist is a damn accurate label.
116. Fuck you.
It's about time other firms moved out of lockstep. It is an idiotic approach to compensation which rewards mediocrity and reinforces lawyers bewlidering sense of entitlement.
Pay for performance works in every other commercial endeavor. Time to buck up and earn your keep.
It's about time other firms moved out of lockstep. It is an idiotic approach to compensation which rewards mediocrity and reinforces lawyers bewlidering sense of entitlement.
Pay for performance works in every other commercial endeavor. Time to buck up and earn your keep.
116 - You are spot on.
Let's take it further - the admin side of the house is asked to take either no raise or a pay cut AND forego any bonuses. And whether you like it or not, without the admin side (secretaries, finance, hr, it, records, etc.) you'd have a tough time with your practice.
So quit bitching about the idea of having to be paid according to your level of skill.
136 - Catch a clue you nimrod.
Step 1 - cut salaries to a sustainable level in the current economic environment;
Step 2 - Evaluate staff to determine high performers, must have solid performers and need to go low performers;
Step 3 - Create pay scale which recognizes performance (hi and low);
Step 4 - Shitcan the bottom
Step 5 - hire people in at a reasonable (read supportable) rate
Step 6 - Adjust comp each year based on performance
Fucking duh!
124 - you have every incentive to not piss off your employers unless you think you have options. And you don't. Have options, that is.
This is a good move and I hope we see more firms stop pretending like its 2006 boom times when law firms are hurting very, very badly. Modest cuts of 20% or so to associate pay, and making associates pay for their own health insurance, should be the rule of the day in my estimation.
Lockstep salaries have always corresponded with lockstep billing rates. Firms pay each associate in a class the same salary, because they bill out the associates in each class at the same rate. A first year is worth $x an hour, a second year is worth $y and hour, a third year is worth $z an hour, etc. High performers are compensated with bonus pay and the prospect of making partner.
Despite what firms are saying now, this system actually made a lot of sense when times were good. Firms never wanted to set variable pay rates for associates within the same class year, because they it didn't want to open up the pandora's box of setting different billing rates within a class year. When everyone was billing, uniformly increasing billing rates each year made firms a lot more money than they lost by uniformly increasing salaries.
This slowdown has obviously marked a shift. Certain groups of associates (bankruptcy, IP, litigation, etc) are dramatically more profitable than others (corporate, real estate finance, securities). Most firms have already gutted the associate ranks in these slow practice areas and don't have a ton of room to make further cuts (when things pick up, the firm will still need competent associates to do the work - especially midlevels). So I think that's the main reason salaries are on the table now.
As other commenters have noted, the "stars" at Soennenschein aren't going to be making any more money than their peers at lockstep firms. The only pie will be shrinking.
As to comments, that other industries don't do lockstep that is inaccurate. Almost all mba's starting out as entry-level consultants or investment bankers start at the same salary and advance for the first couple of years at the same salary. Like law firms, high performers are rewarded with better bonuses. If law firms want to go towards a system in which a larger percentage of compensation is tied to bonus that would be reasonable. However, that does cause its own problems.
Bottomline Sonnenschein can no longer be considered a legitimate national firm. They will not be able to attract top talent when the market comes back and perhaps they don't care.
132,
You are absolutely correct! Working for the federal government is the best.
I got hired into BigLaw out of lawschool making 6 figures, and I was miserable. Lazy partners, ridiculous billables requirements, constant backstabbing, and low quality training.
Today, I'm leaving my government job early because I decided to take a couple hours of vacation and our agency director is dismissing everyone 1 hour early for the holiday.
Also have a free gym, subsidized daycare, student loan repayment, and I can ONLY BE FIRED FOR CAUSE!
Abandon BigLaw! You will do more important work, have more control over strategy/approach, and more satisfaction with the government!
Young TLT is flocking to the government. Our job openings are getting swamped with applications from Ivy and BigLaw people.
130: #6 of your proposals is where it falls apart. Up-or-out is essential. It is what makes biglaw work. Retained senior lawyers stunt the development of the junior lawyers.
This just in: Portnoy is a colossal douche.
#2 is right but being the tallest midget in a race of giants doesn't really count....
The end times are here for Sonnenshein.........
Elliot is unceasingly visionary. To first see the diamond in the Thatcher steaming pile and snatch the pile, umm, I mean the diamond; and then to see and correct the deep unhappiness in Sonny associates caused by their excessive compensation. Elliot, you are a great man, I am a small and simple man!
The spice must flow.
what a bunch of douche-bags. piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. drink the kool-aid, etc. etc.
Not on my EIW list. Not that it ever was. I go to a real law school bitches!
A note to BigLaw associates - You Already Know Your First Major Client
Dear fellow associates,
If you are anything like me and my fellow associates at Thompson Hine, then you are quite fed up with the incompetence, poor planning, and life balance provided by those leading our firms.
If you have clients you are billing significant hours to, then now is the perfect time to run your billing report, figure out how much that client spends on your services (if you're like me, you do 98% of the client's work and your partner just sits around failing to bring in new work), and (after reviewing your state's ethics rules to do so in a way that doesn't violate standards) have a conversation with this client about what you would charge for your services as an independent practitioner.
In essence, what I suggest is a new stratagem for associate success... either our partners bring in enough new clients to keep our hours up, or we start poaching clients.
Associates should not be scared of their law firms. Law firms should be scared of their associates.
(note to Thompson Hine partners - write nau U are peying mi to right this abowt you. N-Joy!)
Not a lot of point commenting on the board - I guess I'll try one more time. No one can really dispute that class year is not the best measure of the quality of a lawyer, so let's agree for a moment that in an ideal world, class year would not be the number one criteria upon which either compensation or billing rates are set. Second, we can also likely agree that a firm legitimately needs to do something about lawyers (partners or associates) who cause a firm to lose money because they don't bill enough hours. So, when times get tighter, and the hours aren't there to support everyone, what's the remedy? It comes down to firing a bunch of somewhat (but not fully) underproductive or less qualified lawyers, so others can hopefully get their hours and stay busy, or keeping as many jobs as you can and paying less across the board. And if you're going to pay some people less, how should you do it? By class year, or by merit? Personally, I think Sonnenschein is pretty thoughtful here, they preserved jobs, and made clear that because they have to change the comp system, they are not going to rely on class year as the primary criteria for how people get compensated in the future. Sure, many people will make less right now, BUT, the better attorneys (by either quality or internal demand or both) will either not make less, or in some cases make more. And to those of you who say you'd quit in a second if a younger attorney made more money than you -- that attitude won't work in another profession - what you earn in the non-law world has NOTHING to do with your age - it has to do with your skill - so please do quit - any lawyer who thinks that way has pretty poor judgment - and that's after all, what most clients hire you for - judgment.
63 is right on. Good issue spotting.
Lockstep not only describes salary, but it also covers bill rates. Your salary increases from year to year and your bill rate increases from year to year. Presumably, you make more money for the firm year over year. You should share in that increase. Some years you may come out ahead, but for the majority of your career, the firm will make a profit on you.
Just a pay cut disguised as merit-based compensation. I imagine most associates will be significantly worse off and possibly a few "stellar performers" will be slightly better off, if at all.
YOU PEOPLE ARE FUNGIBLE. Once you understand that you are only worth what people are willing to pay, your lives will get easier for you.
I LOVE the anger coming from the commenters. You sound like spoiled babies.
159,
We may be fungible, but most partners (likely including yourself) are simply unnecessary.
A partner's primary job is to bring in work. My partners don't make substantive revisions to my work and they don't provide strategic insight that is somehow unavailable to other lawyers.
They are there to bring in work. They are failing to bring in work.
Associates will do quite nicely by poaching the clients that they do the most work for (please consult and comply wih your jurisdiction's ethical guidance on this). Partners expect exorbitant compensation and have the lodestone of firm overhead.
We can do the same work for less.
(note to Thompson Hine partners - your consistent failure to bring us work renders you unnecessary. Also, you are paying me to write this).
The solution to this is for the associates to share their salaries amongst themselves. At least then they'd have a sense of where they stood. But for some reason, no one ever wants to go down that path. Salary was very hush-hush at my last firm too, and it doesn't make for a pleasant experience.
Rogue Associate --
Your problem is that your firm is located in a shithole that is declining economically. In fact, it's becoming a Third World country.
Your partners are unable to bring in business because of that.
Either you or your firm need to relocate. Until then, cease posting this endless drivel. We get it. It's a crappy firm, manned by awful partners and shitty associates who are ALSO failing to bring in business.
160-- you sound very naive. A Partner can have a number of different roles within a firm, from servicing existing clients to managing workerbees (you) to rainmaking to a mix of all.
Since almost every firm in the country is having problems, I guess that means, in your brilliant mind, that every firm has too many unnecessary partners. Or, perhaps the demand for legal services has dropped drastically due to a major economic downturn---maybe? Maybe?
Also--no one has greater scrutiny with his or her comp than a partner. No one.
Finally, your clients don't pay for whatever grunt garbage you do, they pay for the name of the firm and the fact that someone very much more experienced than you is reviewing it.
Rogue Associate,
Partners and firm apologists detest even a whisper of client poaching. Ignore those trolls.
Besides, plenty of Cleveland based firms (though still hurting) are in far better shape than TTThompson Hine.
Sure, the market is in the toilet, but some turds stink worse than others, and, at least in Cleveland, Thompson Hine is a laughing stock. For example, we love that you have an office in Dayton, Ohio, just like all the other important national firms.
146 --
I spent 5 years at the govt, and it is a good gig for the most part. But, not the best spot if you have any ambition, as there's almost nowhere to advance (unless you're in DC or NY with large offices, and even then, most promotions are based on seniority). That means once you hit the top of the pay scale for your grade, all you can get is COLA from then on. It also sucks getting treated like an hourly worker as an attorney, but again, if you are happy doing essentially the same work over and over, it's a great place to be. Nothing wrong with that, but some people want more than that in their career.
160-- you sound very naive. A Partner can have a number of different roles within a firm, from servicing existing clients to managing workerbees (you) to rainmaking to a mix of all.
Since almost every firm in the country is having problems, I guess that means, in your brilliant mind, that every firm has too many unnecessary partners. Or, perhaps the demand for legal services has dropped drastically due to a major economic downturn---maybe? Maybe?
Also--no one has greater scrutiny with his or her comp than a partner. No one.
Finally, your clients don't pay for whatever grunt garbage you do, they pay for the name of the firm and the fact that someone very much more experienced than you is reviewing it.
163,
Yes, many firms do have the same structural problems.
However, very few firms have those severe problems to the extent that Thompson Hine does, which is why they were first to adopt the Hybrid Tough Love package.
"A Partner can have a number of different roles within a firm" - that is precisely the sort of detailed and insightful analysis I expect from a partner. I'm sure the clients are now comforted that they are getting something for their money.
Lastly, you honestly think clients want to sink shareholder cash into a loss center (which is what outside counsel is) because of name recognition? Wow, you are truly a dinosaur failing to understand how our industry is changing.
Just keep polishing that firm nameplate and keep repeating to yourself that you're valuable because of firm name, and people want to pay your hourly rate to review (without making any changes of substance) and rubber stamp the work of mid-level associates.
Let me know how that works out for you. In the meantime, I'll be out to lunch wooing your clients.
I served a six year sentence at Sonnenschein. No, I do not wish to return to that place.
There are many partners that have begun bailing from this sinking ship, particularly in health care and litigation. Glad I won't be going down for the count.
Um, Rogue Associate... interesting. But you work for a TTT, so clearly you know nothing about the legal industry.
Dear 130,
You are clearly a law student. No associate would have written that drivel. There is nothing unsustainable about $160,000 salaries for incoming associates. The firms cutting salary are not LOSING money, they are just making less than before. The idea in this country, suddenly apparent across the board, that when things get tough the bottom should suffer so that the top can enjoy continuity, should make everyone vomit.
When a bank's profits shrink, the appropriate people to eat that shrink are the senior officers, not the bank tellers (whose fault it most definitely is not).
When a law firm's profits shrink, the appropriate people to eat that shrink are the partners, not the junior associates (whose fault it most definitely is not).
In good times, when PPP is up, firms worry about losing associates to other greener pastures. In bad times, when PPP threatens to come down, firms suddenly worry about losing partners to other greener pastures, and forget that they need the associates just as much.
All of this will result in a payoff period when the economy turns. Firms which have managed the downturn the best (likely by cutting chaff, keeping numbers lean, but keeping who they have working) will rebound very quickly indeed. Salaries (or bonuses) will go up again quickly (NYC to 190, coming in 2012) and firms that mistreated associates will see their best and brightest "future partners" leave for greener pastures, stagnating their own recovery.
Everyone keeps talking about "the legal profession has changed!" No, it has not. It did not change after the downturn in the 1980's, it did not change after the Dot Com bubble burst, it did not change after 9/11, and it is not changing now. The names of the clients will change, some of the types of matters will change, but the basic structures and realities will not change.
The problem is, many of these firms are now run by people for whom this is their first true recession. The firms lack the institutional memory to recall that "things have been like this before." The firms who retain that institutional knowledge have not, are not, and will not make these mistakes.
165,
You either are working in a backwater gov't office, or you haven't shown much ambition.
Granted, I'm in D.C., but we have plenty of younger attorneys in charge of older attorneys. If your government office isn't a meritocracy, then it is certainly the exception rather than the rule.
I don't know what you mean by "treated as an hourly employee" - we're all salaried. Are you complaining about the fact we only work 40 hours EVERY week? Yeah, that's awful...
Nor do most of us do the same work over and over again. Some agencies have more interesting and rapidly evolving work, and getting a job with those agencies is more competitive.
169,
Your response is an off-topic ad hominem attack, followed by a sweeping generalization. Truly the detailed and insightful analysis expected of a BigLaw partner (are you sure you don't work at TTThompson Hine? You sound like the caliber of our partners)
I stand chastized as you have clearly demonstrated partners' ability to provide value that justifies their billable rates. Clearly, I was wrong and clients have no interest in containing costs in this environment.
You are a dinosaur and don't understand the way the market is changing. That's ok, the old and the weak have always served as prey for the young and strong.
Can you imagine how little Portnoy thinks of his associates, and of the world, to think anyone would buy this horseshit?
Elliott could have just said, "You, as Associates, will make less money so that we, as Partners, can make more money. Understood?"
Why did this firm hire all those Thacher peeps if their shit is hurting, as it obviously is....? That was a perplexing move at the time and seems even more perplexing now....
Why did this firm hire all those Thacher peeps if their shit is hurting, as it obviously is....? That was a perplexing move at the time and seems even more perplexing now....
I'm going to "redesign" my relationship with the firm as soon as possible. Am not alone. It's clear the current associates are going to be pushed out before becoming partners and replaced by laterals anyway.
Thacher Haters,
The Thacher Acquisition was brilliant because Thacher (outside of securitizations) was compartively mega busy in the downturn. The government work was great.
The reason Thacher was sinking was not because of lack of work but because of a building expansion to nowhere that would them up $30 million in debt at the start of the crunch.
So, Sonnenschein's picking up those attorney's and client relationships free of charge by letting the firm sink was a great idea.
From what I hear, because of the reduced associate head count that went over, the Thacher folks are the only ones consistently doing anything.
This new compensation policy, suggests that buyer was in much more trouble than the seller. I would expect big defections as soon as associate opoportunities open up again.
84,
If you look at what the partners charge for my time, you will find that I bring in more than 2x (close to 3x) my annual salary. As long as that holds true, they have nothing to bitch about. If they want true merit pay, a better way is lower base pay + hours-based bonus + merit bonus for extra value added. This has the benefit of rewarding those who work more and those who work well over those who work less or are boneheads, and keeps everyone happy. This also makes people happy because instead of being paid differently than coworkers, they get the chance to earn "extra" money.
The real way to handle the downturn? Drop the lockstep pay, say, "we can't afford the lockstep pay at current rates and keep all our talented people" (hell, maybe take a poll first so the associates can say they'd prefer paycuts to layoffs, because most of us do), BUT, if your billables go up because the year ends well, we'll make it back up to you in a bonus.
Why it isn't happening--because all law firms want to compete with the big boys with regard to salary. If firms focused more on selling the firm culture, people would be willing to trade off better working conditions for a higher salary.
162-
Did you see any Cleveland firms on the pages of ATL in the last couple months announcing mass layoffs? Didn't think so.
Also, don't be an asshole. The midwest has plenty of lawyers that went to top law schools and could have worked in NY/DC/BOS/SF if they wanted to. Not everyone needs a city full of latte-sipping yuppies and "culture," whatever the hell that means.
I don't work for tips. I did not work my ass off at three years of law school to work for tips. If a law firm wants to work out a real, concrete incentive structure akin to a sales commission or hourly wage, so be it. But any system where the employer can just arbitrary decide at the end of a full year of work what, if anything, my salary will be is completely worthless.
Don't all the banks basically work on a "we will decide what your bonus is at the end of the year" structure? I don't believe any of them have any set parameters for compensation for the vast majority of their investment bankers. Yes, they have past practices and expectations, but basically, the bank is at liberty to raise and lower bonuses pretty much as they please.
Crap firm with craptacular leadership. Period.
Let's see:
The memo speaks of an 18 month vision. I wonder if he is referring to the same "vision" that led that craptastic firm to open and close its Charlotte office in roughly that amount of time.
I also love how he starts out by noting multiple surveys indicating that associates are unhappy in their work. Now, they will also be unhappy with their pay.
"As I discussed with you during today's monthly Firmwide Associate Meeting..." Something tells me that there was not a great deal of "discussion" going on at that meeting. Please replace "discussed" with: dictated, commanded, etc.
"Our recruiting efforts will continue to target outstanding law students and lateral candidates, and our recruiters will focus on recruiting a diverse set of candidates with the attributes most likely to make them successful at Sonnenschein."
That statement probably sounded a lot better in the bunker than it reads on the page. I also admire his choice in verbs, specifically the verb "target." As he is blind to the negative effect(s) this will have on associate morale, that firm can "target" top prospects all it wants. I doubt it will land many/any.
"With fewer entry-level Associates, our newest colleagues will have access to a broader set of opportunities and greater mentoring from senior Associates and Partners."
There is so much that is going wrong in this statement, I hardly know where to begin. This guy has to be one hell of an optimist to believe that the senior Associates at that firm--if there are any left--will be doing much mentoring...other than showing juniors how to hoard work. Broader opportunities, you say? Yes, the entry-level associates will be performing document reviews on all manner of cases.
"We will create a more realistic, comprehensive, and variable compensation structure that better positions our Firm to avoid the typical law firm response of sharpened pencils and reductions the moment client demands or workload needs contract."
That cannot possibly mean what it says. I feel badly for all of those that this firm has let go, especially in light of the statement made quoted above. A shameful, pathetic and abjectly disingenuous statement.
HTH
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
Portnoy's six-page piece is a cruel jest, written for the trade press, not for Sonnenschein associates. During Portnoy's two-year tenure, Sonnenschein has seen a mass exodus of associates that has produced a firm-wide "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one. Here are the numbers, right off Sonnenschein's May 22, 2009 Website: In the New York office, out of 215 "Attorneys & Other Professions," only 86 are "Associates." In Chicago, it's only 62 out of 186. In Washington, it's only 18 out of 112. In San Francisco, it's only 21 out of 54. In Silicon Valley, it's only five out of 21. In Los Angeles, it's only six out of 34. In Dallas, it's only 15 out of 36. In Phoenix, it's only five out of ten. In St. Louis, it's only 25 out of 51. In Kansas City, it's only 23 out of 61. In West Palm Beach, it's only one out of two. In Short Hills, New Jersey, it's only five out of 16. In total, then, of Sonnenschein's 798 "Attorneys & Other Professionals," only 272 are "Associates." Or "negative leverage" of nearly three-to-one.
It was very clear from the get go that Elliott wrote that memo not for us but for you. Take it for what it's worth.
Elliott is a 4 million dollar a year, lying sack of shit who's too damn arrogant to realize he's driving Sonnenschein into the ground.
What did your surveys tell you? That associates want clarity -- ESPECIALLY given all the uncertainty created by the economy. So, what did you do? Eliminate objective payment standards under the guise that you were giving associates what we want.
FUCK YOU, ELLIOTT! Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Sounds like a sinking ship and I'm glad to see that the TPW partners are going down with it.
UPDATE: the vast majority (approx 99%) of non-first year associates received a 15% pay cut.
Elliott was asked (during the firmwide call referenced in the memo) what the average pay cut would be after quoting 7-17%. He responded that he did not have those numbers available. Seems that Elliott is either inept or dishonest. Fantastic leader.
The only way Sonnenschein will get away with this without losing all the “star” associates whose pay has been reduced by 15% as of June 1 with the promise of a nebulous “merit” bonus if they work hard for the rest of the year to meet criteria that have not yet been determined is if all of the firm’s market competitors (1) make the same drastic pay reductions, or (2) go out of business. The only thing associates (supposedly) can count on under Sonnenschein’s current plan is that they can “earn back” the salary they thought they were working for (as of just 10 days before the pay cut takes effect) by billing 200 more hours than they thought they were required to bill. In certain markets, this gives the firm the dubious distinction of requiring the most hours for the least pay of any of its peers by a huge margin. Associates with choices will not stay.
That the firm claims this plan is designed to reward their most productive associates is insulting, and its lip service to the goal of deemphasizing billable hours disingenuous. An associate has to bill to be productive. And the “earn back” provision is tied, not to efficiency or quality of work, but to the requirement that an associate bill a number of hours that, at almost any other peer firm, would earn him or her a nice bonus above and beyond base salary. By reducing associates’ pay regardless of the hours they are on track to bill, the firm has made it clear that it does not trust those highly productive associates to deliver on billable hours. Why would those associates trust Sonnenschein to deliver on merit bonuses?
If Sonnenschein doesn't either remove elliott (whose name I will not capitalize) from his position or go under first, I will be shocked. It may take them a while to go under, but they are headed in the "right" direction. elliott seems downright creepy and sociopathic. Echoing an earlier commenter, his opinion of the rest of the world, including his own associates, must be absolutely abysmal if he spews the bullshit he does and expects people to swallow it. Either that or his opinion of himself is inordinately high. Either way, a sociopath he is.
Regardless of whether elliot is incompetent, a sociopath, or a douche, he has clearly underestimated the mobility of his treasured highest performing associates. The best can leave now. The second best can leave months from now.
At other firms that are cutting associate salaries, extending start dates, or otherwise taking personnel-cost-cutting measures, the partners--as the leaders and role models of the firm--are sharing in economic pain. At both Dechert and DLA Piper, the three highest-paid partners all just announced they are taking huge pay cuts, $1 million per year for the Dechert three. At Sonnenschein, the three highest paid partners are Portnoy, Joe Andrew and Gadi Weinreich. Last year, they were scheduled to make a total of about $7 million. Portnoy went on and on and on for six pages about redesigning a better law firm. But not a word was said about reducing the compensation of any of the big three. The best thing the big three can do for Sonnenschein is leave. Every time they leave a job, the place they left prospers: Arent Fox; Latham & Watkins; Shaw Pittman; The Democratic National Committee; McDermott Will & Emery. Once these guys leave Sonnenschein (probably for Morgan Lewis or Greenberg Traurig) Sonnenschein can get back to being one of the top firms in Chicago. There is enough talent remaining in Chicago (and its two other Midwest offices) for the firm to survive and thrive.
At other firms that are cutting associate salaries, extending start dates, or otherwise taking personnel-cost-cutting measures, the partners--as the leaders and role models of the firm--are sharing in economic pain. At both Dechert and DLA Piper, the three highest-paid partners all just announced they are taking huge pay cuts, $1 million per year for the Dechert three. At Sonnenschein, the three highest paid partners are Portnoy, Joe Andrew and Gadi Weinreich. Last year, they were scheduled to make a total of about $7 million. Portnoy went on and on and on for six pages about redesigning a better law firm. But not a word was said about reducing the compensation of any of the big three. The best thing the big three can do for Sonnenschein is leave. Every time they leave a job, the place they left prospers: Arent Fox; Latham & Watkins; Shaw Pittman; The Democratic National Committee; McDermott Will & Emery. Once these guys leave Sonnenschein (probably for Morgan Lewis or Greenberg Traurig) Sonnenschein can get back to being one of the top firms in Chicago. There is enough talent remaining in Chicago (and its two other Midwest offices) for the firm to survive and thrive.
At other firms that are cutting associate salaries, extending start dates, or otherwise taking personnel-cost-cutting measures, the partners--as the leaders and role models of the firm--are sharing in economic pain. At both Dechert and DLA Piper, the three highest-paid partners all just announced they are taking huge pay cuts, $1 million per year for the Dechert three. At Sonnenschein, the three highest paid partners are Portnoy, Joe Andrew and Gadi Weinreich. Last year, they were scheduled to make a total of about $7 million. Portnoy went on and on and on for six pages about redesigning a better law firm. But not a word was said about reducing the compensation of any of the big three. The best thing the big three can do for Sonnenschein is leave. Every time they leave a job, the place they left prospers: Arent Fox; Latham & Watkins; Shaw Pittman; The Democratic National Committee; McDermott Will & Emery. Once these guys leave Sonnenschein (probably for Morgan Lewis or Greenberg Traurig) Sonnenschein can get back to being one of the top firms in Chicago. There is enough talent remaining in Chicago (and its two other Midwest offices) for the firm to survive and thrive.
At other firms that are cutting associate salaries, extending start dates, or otherwise taking personnel-cost-cutting measures, the partners--as the leaders and role models of the firm--are sharing in economic pain. At both Dechert and DLA Piper, the three highest-paid partners all just announced they are taking huge pay cuts, $1 million per year for the Dechert three. At Sonnenschein, the three highest paid partners are Portnoy, Joe Andrew and Gadi Weinreich. Last year, they were scheduled to make a total of about $7 million. Portnoy went on and on and on for six pages about redesigning a better law firm. But not a word was said about reducing the compensation of any of the big three. The best thing the big three can do for Sonnenschein is leave. Every time they leave a job, the place they left prospers: Arent Fox; Latham & Watkins; Shaw Pittman; The Democratic National Committee; McDermott Will & Emery. Once these guys leave Sonnenschein (probably for Morgan Lewis or Greenberg Traurig) Sonnenschein can get back to being one of the top firms in Chicago. There is enough talent remaining in Chicago (and its two other Midwest offices) for the firm to survive and thrive.
At other firms that are cutting associate salaries, extending start dates, or otherwise taking personnel-cost-cutting measures, the partners--as the leaders and role models of the firm--are sharing in economic pain. At both Dechert and DLA Piper, the three highest-paid partners all just announced they are taking huge pay cuts, $1 million per year for the Dechert three. At Sonnenschein, the three highest paid partners are Portnoy, Joe Andrew and Gadi Weinreich. Last year, they were scheduled to make a total of about $7 million. Portnoy went on and on and on for six pages about redesigning a better law firm. But not a word was said about reducing the compensation of any of the big three. The best thing the big three can do for Sonnenschein is leave. Every time they leave a job, the place they left prospers: Arent Fox; Latham & Watkins; Shaw Pittman; The Democratic National Committee; McDermott Will & Emery. Once these guys leave Sonnenschein (probably for Morgan Lewis or Greenberg Traurig) Sonnenschein can get back to being one of the top firms in Chicago. There is enough talent remaining in Chicago (and its two other Midwest offices) for the firm to survive and thrive.
At other firms that are cutting associate salaries, extending start dates, or otherwise taking personnel-cost-cutting measures, the partners--as the leaders and role models of the firm--are sharing in economic pain. At both Dechert and DLA Piper, the three highest-paid partners all just announced they are taking huge pay cuts, $1 million per year for the Dechert three. At Sonnenschein, the three highest paid partners are Portnoy, Joe Andrew and Gadi Weinreich. Last year, they were scheduled to make a total of about $7 million. Portnoy went on and on and on for six pages about redesigning a better law firm. But not a word was said about reducing the compensation of any of the big three. The best thing the big three can do for Sonnenschein is leave. Every time they leave a job, the place they left prospers: Arent Fox; Latham & Watkins; Shaw Pittman; The Democratic National Committee; McDermott Will & Emery. Once these guys leave Sonnenschein (probably for Morgan Lewis or Greenberg Traurig) Sonnenschein can get back to being one of the top firms in Chicago. There is enough talent remaining in Chicago (and its two other Midwest offices) for the firm to survive and thrive.
At other firms that are cutting associate salaries, extending start dates, or otherwise taking personnel-cost-cutting measures, the partners--as the leaders and role models of the firm--are sharing in economic pain. At both Dechert and DLA Piper, the three highest-paid partners all just announced they are taking huge pay cuts, $1 million per year for the Dechert three. At Sonnenschein, the three highest paid partners are Portnoy, Joe Andrew and Gadi Weinreich. Last year, they were scheduled to make a total of about $7 million. Portnoy went on and on and on for six pages about redesigning a better law firm. But not a word was said about reducing the compensation of any of the big three. The best thing the big three can do for Sonnenschein is leave. Every time they leave a job, the place they left prospers: Arent Fox; Latham & Watkins; Shaw Pittman; The Democratic National Committee; McDermott Will & Emery. Once these guys leave Sonnenschein (probably for Morgan Lewis or Greenberg Traurig) Sonnenschein can get back to being one of the top firms in Chicago. There is enough talent remaining in Chicago (and its two other Midwest offices) for the firm to survive and thrive.
Sonnenschein has had enough of elliott's ego.
i've heard from a good source in mcdermott will & emery's d.c. office that mcdermott has a similar plan in the works.
207 -- I hear that Burchfield intends to take a 1 mil. pay cut to save a few associate positions. That's the rumor circulating the DC office. If true, he's more of a stand-up guy than I previously thought, and I'd certainly expect the same from our dynamic duo of co-chairmen!
Given my annualization, my salary cut is really around 30%. I would so rather have received this:
"Associates at Reed Smith will be seeing an across-the board 10 percent pay cut beginning July 1... The associate bonus program, however, will not be changed in 2009, and "we will use it to continue to reward strong performance," the memo says."
Elliott appears to be implementing an 'I wanna make my mark' ego-driven agenda while his associates have limited options. Not a guy I'd wanna work for.
ATL hit it right on the head:
"Interestingly, it seems that Sonnenschein really wants to be a market leader for killing lockstep compensation: "
This is Elliott's baby -- his way to make a mark on the legal profession.
Although Elliott lied during prior associate calls (during which he claimed that, based on associate feedback, we would maintain the same system, go to lockstep, or a hybrid,) it's apparent that Elliott always intended to leave lockstep in view of the overwhelming requests for transparency and objective compensation standards.
When DLA Piper alluded earlier this month of a future move away from lockstep, Elliott rammed this new policy through without any specifics or direction. At least this is the only way to explain the horrific timing with zero specifics in place. As is, SNR associates have no idea what's going on.
Thanks, Elliott. Idiot.
Can't we all just get along?
I work at Sonn. and with this pay cut my salary is down 30% from the first of the year. I am on track to bill over 3000 hours and Porknoy doles out pay cuts across the board regardless of merit or hours or past performance, whilst hiring more associates and reaping in $4 million a year. This firm did not have a stellar reputation before this -- it is now at the bottom of the pay scale with a max. number of billable hours expected. He now wants us to be stupid enough to play "follow the carrot" into next January, putting our shoulders to the grindstone, at which time our "merit based" bonus will disappear along with the 15% of our salaries that we are supposed to "earn back." Animal Farm comes to mind. In addition, this "restructuring" means, basically, that I will never make partner. This is the way they "reward" stellar performance? Calling a recruiter this morning. I have nothing to lose.
Jesus, 213, you're billing 3000 hours and you can't leave. I still have people calling me about good opportunities every now and then in this economy on a 2000 pace and I was getting a few calls a week when it was busy and I was billing 2400 or so. 3000? You should be able to go somewhere better.