Ouch.

First years at Nixon were previously making 165k?

first

Promissory estoppel, anyone?

everyone is NOT a winner at NP apparently

everyone is NOT a winner at NP apparently

at one point there may have been some winners somewhere.

i bet they all feel like winners.

Beats losing your job.

Wow. I'm a 2nd year at a boutique in a low cost of living area and make more than some nixon peabody 3rd years? ... and i also have plenty of work to do. i guess i should count my blessings.

So first years at NP used to make 165k, 5k above market? (If not, you can't subtract: a drop to 145 does not mean a 20k cut if 1st years were making 160k!)

Salary cuts are fine... but only if cuts in billable hours follow. I work at a mid-sized firm in Chicago. 1800 billables, 120k. 145k @2000 billables is absurd

5, lets us know when you graduate law school.

It's still better than things at my firm. I'm with Thompson Hine in Ohio (I know, I know, medicore firm in a crap market), and we're getting beat up way worse than this. Salary cuts, staff reductions, etc. etc.

When staff and associates are constantly getting laid off, trying to get a secretary to do any work for an associate is pretty much impossible. If you aren't a partner, you're doing it yourself!

I wonder how many of the associates are billing clients for the time they spend doing their own secretarial work... I wonder whether the clients are happy about that...

When does the 2010 Vault Guide to Top 100 Law firms come out? August? When did it go to print?

Two weeks ago, I was a winner,
Went to the gym to try to get thinner,
But now I am broke
I just sit here and smoke
And eat McDonald's for breakfast and dinner.

To law firms: Let this be a lesson
To postpone your recording session --
A theme song's a gaffe
When you can't pay your staff;
regarding salary you keep them a-guessin'.

-- by: The Lim Ricker

QUINN REMAINS at market

To 3 and 13:

No, first years made $160k, not $165k. Erroneous math from the tipster.

To answer the questions, yes, first years at Nixon were making $165k. After the theme song embarassment, the firm bumped almost everyone, firm-wide, up $5k to improve morale. What a cruel joke.....

The 'almost' means that some people who started very very shortly after the $5k bump who were not aware of it and didnt know to ask about it did not receive it. Losers..... errrr, I mean, winners? I am so confused.

I don't know what is more insulting. The low starting salary, or the basically non-existing raises. What bullshit!

To answer the questions, yes, first years at Nixon were making $165k. After the theme song embarassment, the firm bumped almost everyone, firm-wide, up $5k to improve morale. What a cruel joke.....

The 'almost' means that some people who started very very shortly after the $5k bump who were not aware of it and didnt know to ask about it did not receive it. Losers..... errrr, I mean, winners? I am so confused.

To 3 and 13:

Apparently I was one of those that started after the theme song and did not know to ask for the extra five large. I guess 20 and 22 is right.

Too bad I didn't rely on my making $165k or else I'd have a pretty strong claim against the firm (not sure under what legal or equitable theory but I'm sure one exists).

--19

No one should ever go to work at Nixon Peabody after this recession ends. What kind of TTT place even has an office in upstate New York?

thank you, 14! you are today's winner.

The ship be sinking...

13 - it's based on the fact that there's not enough work to bill 200 hours. And I still say it's better than losing your job.

10

26, do you remember this? I welcome your comment, you coke abuser you!

REPORTER: What do you think is happening to the team [the Knicks]?
RICHARDSON: The ship be sinking.
REPORTER: How far can it sink?
RICHARDSON: Sky's the limit.

Partners never let a crisis go to waste.

I know the rationale is that the pay cut saves jobs, but is it really better to anger 100% of your associates rather than anger the 10-15% you would otherwise lay off (and who are probably going to be quietly let go anyway).

I would not be too surprised if less-profitable firms decided to issue pay cuts (they'll probably call them inverse raises or salary revaluations or something) to pad partner profits and curry favor from clients.

And so it begins. One firm after the next will race to the bottom. NY to $100K, anyone? Law students graduating this year paid top of the market dollars for their law school tuitions. They expected to get the renowned $160k/yr to start, and so that justified the massive debt they incurred in law school. Now, if they are lucky enough to have a job at all, they will see their pay packages shrink this year (and probably next, too). They will simply be working to pay student loans, with no profit left over to reward their investment.

Class of '09 is the literally the "Lost Generation," because of how much money they will lose on their law school tutition investment.

And so it begins. One firm after the next will race to the bottom. NY to $100K, anyone? Law students graduating this year paid top of the market dollars for their law school tuitions. They expected to get the renowned $160k/yr to start, and so that justified the massive debt they incurred in law school. Now, if they are lucky enough to have a job at all, they will see their pay packages shrink this year (and probably next, too). They will simply be working to pay student loans, with no profit left over to reward their investment.

Class of '09 is the literally the "Lost Generation," because of how much money they will lose on their law school tutition investment.

No one is a winner at NIXON PEABODY!

whooo!

And so it begins. One firm after the next will race to the bottom. NY to $100K, anyone? Law students graduating this year paid top of the market dollars for their law school tuitions. They expected to get the renowned $160k/yr to start, and so that justified the massive debt they incurred in law school. Now, if they are lucky enough to have a job at all, they will see their pay packages shrink this year (and probably next, too). They will simply be working to pay student loans, with no profit left over to reward their investment.

Class of '09 is the literally the "Lost Generation," because of how much money they will lose on their law school tutition investment.

And so it begins. One firm after the next will race to the bottom. NY to $100K, anyone? Law students graduating this year paid top of the market dollars for their law school tuitions. They expected to get the renowned $160k/yr to start, and so that justified the massive debt they incurred in law school. Now, if they are lucky enough to have a job at all, they will see their pay packages shrink this year (and probably next, too). They will simply be working to pay student loans, with no profit left over to reward their investment.

Class of '09 is the literally the "Lost Generation," because of how much money they will lose on their law school tutition investment.

lost generation, lol. calm down.

i feel bad for the only kid at my school going to NP. no good news coming out of this place.

"Class of '09 is the literally the "Lost Generation," because of how much money they will lose on their law school tutition investment."

I swear it is no wonder people hate lawyers (and Wall St). The rest of the world takes its losses in stride without bailouts, without regrets. Lost Generation is bunch of crap. Get your head out of your ass and do something. Even if it means digging ditches.

Yes; 36, many law grads will have to "dig ditches," but they could have done that without going into six figures of debt first.

I don't know if there is a lost generation of lawyers or not, but I do know that the class of '09 will be remembered for having the worst possible sense of timing.

Just a matter of time before every big firm in NYC/DC/LA/SF has first years starting at 145 - the better firms will just make up for it in bonuses. Other markets like Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago will probably go a little lower.

There is a firm named after Richard Nixon? Don't they know what happened to him?

Hi Everybody!

I'm only a 1L, but I wonder if I could sue Nixon Peabody under Restatement § 90 for what they're doing.

I only went to law school because I wanted a $160,000 salary, and if other firms start following Nixon Peabody with lowering salaries, I just don't think that would be very fair. :(

Since I haven't done on campus interviews yet, I don't know what firm I'll get a job at. But even if I end up at some other great firm, like Schulte Roth, couldn't I sue Nixon Peabody under a promissory estoppel claim if Schulte Roth ends up lowering salaries too??

What do you guys think?!?!

OMG ELIE!!!!

You deleted the "Pope Führer" reference from your post last week. What the hell?

http://abovethelaw.com/search.php?cx=016468871173144498974%3Aad9tci4ogk0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=f%C3%BChrer&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=submit#603

This is unreal. You deleted it. Remember when Elie called the Pope of the Catholic Church "Pope Führer" last week!

Here is proof: http://abovethelaw.com/search.php?cx=016468871173144498974%3Aad9tci4ogk0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=f%C3%BChrer&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=submit#603

Look at the first thread.

Now, Elie has deleted the comment because he regrets it, but won't apologize.

This is crazy.

40 - yeah, let us know how that goes.

Hey 40: You have no chance of recovering anything. However, you are also lucky -- because you are only a 1L you have not wasted that much money on tutition. Quit laaw school now. When law schools slash tuitions (because nobody will pay current high prices in light of the declining job market), reapply for law school and pay a lower tutition. You will have lost one year's tutition, but that is better than losing three years tutition on an education that won't pay off.

Hey 40: You have no chance of recovering anything. However, you are also lucky -- because you are only a 1L you have not wasted that much money on tutition. Quit laaw school now. When law schools slash tuitions (because nobody will pay current high prices in light of the declining job market), reapply for law school and pay a lower tutition. You will have lost one year's tutition, but that is better than losing three years tutition on an education that won't pay off.

Round 1--Layoffs; Round 2---Deferred start dates, salary freezes/reductions; Round 3--Layoffs (redux).

41, haha, ATL just got googlecachepwned.
From Lat to MysTTTal, that is change we can believe in.

I am embarrassed for all of you.

YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS

Skadden Secure

40,

Epic fail. If you are going to participate in trolldom, you need to learn how to be funny. Step one, don't be long-winded. I will give you troll lessons myself.

LAW FIRM *SPINS* OUT OF CONTROL; CALLS REDUCTION OF SALARY TO 2006 LEVELS "INNOVATIVE PAY STRUCTURE" TO "REWARD HIGHEST PERFORMING ASSOCIATES;" IN IRONIC TWIST, ASSOCIATES' BELIEF WOULD PROVE INFERIOR REASONING ABILITY, JUSTIFYING LOWER SALARY.

42 and 43/44, you guys crack me up

Should Obama save the economy, this behavior will be remembered by Nixon Peabody associates. However, this may turn out to be a blessing if it keeps the associates under the near future 90% tax bracket for anyone making more money than Obama deems appropriate.

OMG ELIE!!!!

You deleted the "Pope Führer" reference from your post last week. What the hell?

http://abovethelaw.com/search.php?cx=016468871173144498974%3Aad9tci4ogk0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=f%C3%BChrer&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=submit#603

This is unreal. You deleted it. Remember when Elie called the Pope of the Catholic Church "Pope Führer" last week!

Here is proof: http://abovethelaw.com/search.php?cx=016468871173144498974%3Aad9tci4ogk0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=f%C3%BChrer&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=submit#603

Look at the first thread.

Now, Elie has deleted the comment because he regrets it, but won't apologize.

This is crazy.

40 - Even crap firms like Nixon Peabody won't hire people with crap legal reasoning like yours. But, be comforted in the fact that Loyal_2L wants to give you a hug.

Elie:

Would it be possible to add firm's Vault ranking to the post? I think it will be interesting to check the potential influence of firms. For example, I assume that NP, which is ranked #71, can probably influence firms 101 and greater. So, if you are sitting at a firm just outside the Vault 100, it may be time to get nervous. On the flip side, if you are at a V50 firm, you probably need not worry about NP influencing your firm directly -- firms 61 - 100, its a coin flip.

40, OG Section 90 troll here. You just ruined the joke.

I'm an incoming first year at a biglaw firm that has deferred its entire incoming associate class, that also pays market.

I'd happily accept a pay downgrade even to about 125 if it would mean a solid start date and some lenience on hours if there aren't many to go around. That's about what I was expecting to earn when I decided to come to law school, so my debt isn't too much to handle on that salary. No incoming associate from summer 2008 could have expected to make 160 out of law school, because that's not where the market was when we came in (I think it was at 145 then).

This whole, sitting on a deferral and trying to divine whether it's a cold offer-rescission or whether the firm is just going to push us back further as our deferred start dates approach, is really aggravating.

40- I think you might have a good claim. Check Section 90 of the Restaement (Second) on Contracts for more information.

(I can't believe this is still working on people).

How the hell is the Class of 09 a lost generation? The vast majority of people still got jobs for their 2L summers last year and got full time offers out of those jobs. The vast majority of those people still have those jobs to go to or are getting a decent deferral package, and will likely start with at their firm within the next year and a half. So a few firms cut salaries and one class is labeled as lost? Does the dumbass who posted that realize that salary reductions and freezes affect all classes? Why arent very senior associates who thought they were going to make partner in their firms corporate department considered "lost," since a lot of those people will have to wait years for that to happen now, or worse, will be shown the door?

NewsFlash - FOR THE WIN!

"The best news is that Nixon's cuts have not been adopted by peer firms. At least not yet."

Just because a failing firm like Nixon Peabody is cutting salaries doesn't mean that other firms will follow.

58 -- most of the people deferred will never start at the firms that deferred them. And the deferral package can't be considered "decent" when the expectation was that you would be pulling in $160k over the year that you will now be "deferred." Soon, ATL will begin posting stories about deferred offers being rescinded (some have already come out). Some of those firms will pay "severance" like Stroock, others will simply fire the deferred associates without so much as a goodbye.
Yes, senior associates are getting screwed also, but at least they got to enjoy some good earning years during the boom. It is only the Lost Generation (aka the class of '09) that is getting nothing but the shaft.

Is money the only thing that matters. Why not just become a theif. Oh, yeah, I understand now.

Firms will pay what the market will bare.. and the market now will bare allot lower than 160. Better cut back on that lobster and skrimps dinner your used to.

It's better than firing 50% of first three classes like Latham did.

Firms will pay what the market will bare.. and the market now will bare allot lower than 160. Better cut back on those lobster and skrimps dinners you're used to.

clearly you guys saying you dont mind a cut in salary as long as there is a cut in hours arent getting it....why would they cut hour requirements when these were the same hour requirements when they were paying 125-145K to begin with some years back?

You will get a pay cut and will continue to be required to bill the same amount of hours...how do you think partners get their profits? Hello?

Why ouch? I'd gladly trade 10% of my salary for a little job security. Why do I care that I am making less as a third-year than first-years make at another firm? That's assuming those first years HAVE JOBS.

56, why don't you tell your proposal to the firm, and offer to take a pay cut? You know, negotiate your salary and responsibilities, just like what people do in every other non-unionized profession.

Oh I know why, biglaw lawyers are risk-averse lemmings unwilling to take initiative and deviate from the well-worn path, even though that path (2L OCI, summer associate, associate with lockstep salary, leave after 2-4 years) is leading you to a cliff.

61 is dead on. The vast majority of deferred associates will never step foot inside their firms. Most firms will probably continue deferring and/or simply revoke offers. And there will be no recruiting hit to speak of, since almost every firm will be doing this.

If I were a 2009 grad, I would be looking for another way to put food on the table.

63, "your used to." Hahaha - I smell GULC

The problem with Nixon is that its chairman and the people who run the firm are oblivious. At the "State of the Firm" address this past winter, they were discussing the possibility of pay RAISES. Here is the link to a video of that address, which I'm sure after this story is about to get many more hits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

It's about respect, it's about intergrity.

63 - are you my secretary? Get back to work you tramp!

Firms should really drop all this "one firm" language. It is not okay to pay NYC associates the same as you pay people in other parts of the country.

41,
AGREE. ELIE YOU MUST ***OPENLY*** APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING THE POPE "POPE FUHRER". BELIEVE IT OR NOT, SOME EDUCATED PEOPLE STILL ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN RELIGION. I FEEL BAD FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T.

IT'S NOT FUNNY.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.
IT'S NOT FUNNY.

Firms like NP had no business paying first years 160K in the first place. This is a market correction going to be felt hard by non-V15 firms. The big boys will be the only one standing.

If Nixon Peabody were a peer firm rather than a confederation of small-time lawyers, this post might actually matter. No one cares.

Any comments from NP associates on the state of the firm? Add offices/practice groups if you can

I disagree that most incoming associates who are going to be deferred for this year will not eventually start work with their firm. At least with firms in the within the Vault 50, I just don't think firing deferred associates is worth the bad press, and I think the reputation a firm would get from it is much worse than what they would get from a layoff. The class of 2010 felt some of the pain during recruiting, but now they are going to see it head on. Watch for many firms, including those in the V5 and V10, to be willing to no offer at least 10% of summer associates.

Why hasn't the NP salary cut posts mentioned that the firm didn't even let either the incoming associates or summer associates know about the deductions? These people have not even received an email!

48 - you wound me.

haven't

"Class of 2009 will LITERALLY be the Lost Generation." Really? They will "literally" be lost? As in no one will be able to find them? Whyere will they be? On an island in the Pacific? Sucked into some vortex?

I hate when people use "literally" like that. One of my pet peeves. When you use literally in that manner, guess what? It means LITERALLY!

75, suck it.

I think the "best news" is that the firm really hasn't laid many associates off...something like 20 out of a 800+ attorney firm. That's a drop in the bucket compared to many firms. I'd take a pay cut over mass layoffs...at least for now.

Nixon Peabody is a "one legged man in an ass kicking contest" I expect them to merge or get swallowed up shortly...and we all know what that means!

MORE LAYOFFS!!!

83-

Are you Ted Mosby?

-Tarbosh

Today is an excellent day to pound my secretary in her ass.

Oh 87 you have my heart.

24 - you ask, what kind of firm has an office in upstate NY?
hmmmmm.........how about one that gets paid millions of dollars to lobby the state government -- ever hear of Albany?

Sweet! Let's meet up for drinks...My schedule is flexible since there is jack-shit to do around here.

-Tarbosh

87-
Sweet! Let's meet up for drinks...My schedule is flexible since there is jack-shit to do around here.

-Tarbosh

83 -- read the original post, idiot. The Class of '09 will LITERALLY be a "lost" generation -- in that the class of '09 will "lose" money on their investment in a law school tutition, that is, it will be "lost" money.

83 -- read the original post, idiot. The Class of '09 will LITERALLY be a "lost" generation -- in that the class of '09 will "lose" money on their investment in a law school tutition, that is, it will be "lost" money.

83 -- read the original post, idiot. The Class of '09 will LITERALLY be a "lost" generation -- in that the class of '09 will "lose" money on their investment in a law school tutition, that is, it will be "lost" money.

You're right, 83. The metric push in the US failed. They should have used "Gallonly".

Oddly enough there is this city in Western, NY...I think its called Buffalo. Yes, Buffalo, thats it.

Supposedly they are in close proximity to this little international village named "Toronto." I've never heard of it, but apparently this country "Canada" (again, never heard of it) has different laws than the United States. With these "international issues" supposedly there is plenty of work and some successful mid-large firms in this city.

Again, they say it is in Western New York and their name is Buffalo? Wasn't Rick James from that place?

NP associate input?

98-
I wouldn't be surprised if NP banned ATL from their servers. Don't expect to get comments from NP associates.

It seems to me that the first-year salaries being hit are those (a) based in or around NYC and/or (b) at least $145k. Does this mean that some of the other big city first-years' salaries (e.g. Chicago, Philadelphia)--who may not top 145 (although some probably do)--are safe from cuts? And doesn't class size have something to do with this also?

99-

Good point...maybe they'll post after work

75, that is least of the reasons for an apology from Elie Mystal on any given day. In any event, there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with satirizing a popular public figure for his past associations. There is no need to fear your opprobrium or your caps, and certainly not because because you bear a degree but still believe in ghosts.

I am embarrassed for all of you.

YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS

Skadden Fired (er, I mean Skadden Sidebar)

Many people are expressing a sentiment along the lines of "I don't mind having my salary cut, as long as I get to keep my job." The problem is that salary cuts and job security aren't related - they're only being made to seem related. Sure, a firm like NP will save money by cutting associate salaries, which theoretically means they could keep more associates on the payroll for longer. The question is, why would they? Once salaries have been lowered to $145K (or lower), those same associates will still be low on work unless the firm's cost savings is passed along to clients in the form of lower hourly rates. Six months from now, NP will still have a bunch of lawyers billing 1500 hours a year, and every reason in the world to engage in layoffs.

Let's fix the real problem, folks: increase demand for legal services by dropping the price for those services. If you have to engage in layoffs or salary reductions to make that work financially, then fine, but don't mistake the consequences of a cure for the cure itself.

NIXON PEABODY NIXIN' EVERYBODY

I am interested in purchasing existing life insurance policies. The criteria must be that you have been insured for at least two years, have a suicide clause, and own a handgun and have been recently laid off. I am particularly interested in those that meet the above criteria and are over 45.

1. "Pope Fuhrer," that's kinda funny. "Pope Adolf I" might've read better, but whatever. Point is, Elie wants to show contempt for the man's politics/policies. Go, Elie. Yay, you.

2. Fuck anyone offended by that. They'd all laugh if Elie called the Archbishop of Canterbury a ... a jerkwad, or something. Is there still an archbishop of Canterbury? But you see my point.

3. Public figure, freedom of speech, (tepid) satire, et cetera. Grow a thicker skin and put away the pitchforks, all you former altar boys.

4. Taking DOWN the comment? That's pathetic. You made the crack, now stand by it. Don't like the pope? Go ahead and compare him to the warcrazed architect of the Holocaust. Stand by your crack, Mr. Mystal.

Mr. Mystal, tell me
Who do you think you are?
Mr. Mystal
You're never gonna get my love

i worked at nixon peabody years ago when market was $125k (starting) and they paid $105k. NP just likes to pay less to its associates, regardless of the market.

109,

were the hours less than firms that paid market?

No, NP has always required market billable hours. 1850 in secondary markets (now $95,000) and 2000 in major markets (145,000).

wasn't this the same firm that was going to merge wtih TTThelen

@63: "bare"?? "allot"?? "your used to"??

On the bright side, you won't even graduate in the top half of your TTT school with those language skills, so the whole Biglaw salary debacle that's unfolding won't concern you at all.

(I'll cut you some slack on the "skrimps"--just note that it is spelled "shrimp", even the plural form.)

113-

That's racist!! He's black..you can speak like that. Remember, Obama said it is like fusion jazz, except a dialect. You cannot make fun of Black people's spelling...accorgin to Barack their dialect is Art

-Tarbosh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SeL6i3sHM0

Here's the deal with Nixon. They try to sell people on what a great place it is to work with their "Best Places to Work" awards and low, low 1,850 minimum, but then you sign up and find out that you need to bill 1,950 to be eligible for a bonus (making 1,950 the unofficial minimum). Until a couple of weeks ago the bonuses started at about 3% and did not rise quickly. WAAAAAAAAY low.

Then you find out that they justify below market bonuses (and now below-market base pay) by saying that Nixon has always made comp decisions based on merit, and that's something that sets the firm apart from lockstep dinosaurs. NP rewards high performers. Don't that sound sweet?

And then news like this comes out, and you realize that all that high performers get is screwed just like everyone else, all in the name of protecting partners who've been doing nada.

The promise of a revamped bonus structure is a joke. All that associates know -- and probably all they will know until this time next year -- is that the maximum bonus is now 30%, down from 35% in years past. And as for what ungodly amount of hours you need to bill to reach that 30%, it's anyone's guess.

It just got a whole lot more embarrassing to work for NP.

Nixon "peeonyourbody"

104: Why do you assume that lowering billing rates will increase work? An M&A deal or IPO sitting on the shelf is not suddenly going to get the green light because the lawyers have agreed to bill 10% less. The problem is everywhere because there is not enough economic activity and therefore too many lawyers and not enough work. And any gains from business you poach will be lost when the other firms are forced to lower their rates to compete.

116-

I get that your upset about their current changes, but is there a silver lining? I imagine there must be some benefits at NP vs other firms otherwise associates would have lateraled out (when they could before the crash).

The most outrageous part of the salary scale is that a third year doing actual work only gets $10,000 (7%) more than a useless first year.

119 --

First off, lots of associates did -- the ones I know who left when the gettin' was good were among the brightest go-getters in the group. And there's no denying that at least certain offices are perfectly tolerable places to work. But when a first year at a "peer" firm is getting paid more than your third years, morale is going to plunge, and the one thing NP supposedly had is going to disappear. And nobody's going to forget this if/when the market comes back.

121-

Solid points. Hopefully, although doubtful, NP will be smart about giving reasonable bonuses, otherwise I'm sure top talent will lateral out.

At first, it was all about the team, respect, and integrity. They strived for excellence and satisfaction. Of that there was no denying, no uncertainty. Indeed, everyone was a winner at Nixon Peabody. But, things have changed. It's now all about the partners with books who happen to sit on various committees. To call this shameful is to put too attactive a face on it.

122 - Not a chance. NP has never had a decent bonus policy. Never will.

116 nailed it perfectly.

40--You have suffered no injury yet.

this is good stuff. really.

1) Nixon determined that having everyone sharing the paid was better than a RIF. Most of the other associates around here, who are sitting around doing nothing, are happy to collect a smaller paycheck than no paycheck.

2) I believe this same comp reduction has occured at the partner level. The unit value has gone down, and those partners who are at set comps have, by and large, seen no increase or a decrease in their 2009 comp. Again, Nixon could easily have decided to lay off associates in order to keep or even increase partner comp.

Too many people with too narrow a view of the world reading this site. Take off the blinders, folks. Be happy you are in an industry where you can collect a six figure salary as a trainee to start your career...

this is good stuff. really.

1) Nixon determined that having everyone sharing the paid was better than a RIF. Most of the other associates around here, who are sitting around doing nothing, are happy to collect a smaller paycheck than no paycheck.

2) I believe this same comp reduction has occured at the partner level. The unit value has gone down, and those partners who are at set comps have, by and large, seen no increase or a decrease in their 2009 comp. Again, Nixon could easily have decided to lay off associates in order to keep or even increase partner comp.

Too many people with too narrow a view of the world reading this site. Take off the blinders, folks. Be happy you are in an industry where you can collect a six figure salary as a trainee to start your career...

127/128:

1 - Why on God's green earth would you want to hurt people who are performing in order to save people "who are sitting around doing nothing"? Because you care so much? Sure you do.

2 - You "believe," huh? Way to conceal your NP management position. Partners are partners, so they share in profit and losses. That's the deal. You could have saved a lot more dough by cutting some of the many deadweight partners at the firm. If it would have been so easy to do a 2nd (3rd?) round of layoffs, you would have.

Here's my narrow view: NP is now the only firm in its class underpaying its associates. Your top performers are preparing their resumes. Enjoy being left with all those associates who are good at nothing but sitting around.

129 -

1) because Nixon Peabody management (which I am not part of, although I am a junior partner) recognizes that associates have very little control over their workflow. With the very rare exception of a few senior associates who have their own client(s), associates rely on partners to bring in work. So NP decided that, rather than lay off good associates (remember, they have only laid off about 25 while many other firms of comparable size have laid off 100+), it is better to retain as many as possible for the day when the economy heats back up, and there is more work to be done. The associates who were "performing", and had a demonstrated history of doing so, were not hit very hard at all by the salary cuts. But the associates who had been around for 4-5 years, and were getting lock-step salary increases despite billing about 1700 hours a year, well they got dinged pretty good. But you know what? they still have jobs, which is more than I can say for comparable associates at a LOT of other firms.

2) Yes partners are partners, but... NEWSFLASH not all partners share in profits and losses. Not when you have a two tier partner system. And believe me when I tell you that underperforming partners at both the equity and nonequity level got hit much worse than associates. Try calculating how much a 25% pay cut is for a partner making $600k, for instance...

I'll say it again - take off your freaking blinders. You graduate law school, and basically know NOTHING for the next 2 years, and expect, no demand, a six figure salary while you get trained. Those of you in "biglaw" with a job right now should be thanking the good Lord, because you have it much better than 90% of the country. But no, you bitch and moan because your $160k salary has been cut to $145k - A HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. *shakes head*

As for the "top performers" preparing their resumes - trust me the top performers did not get pay cuts. And if you reply with "well all years 1-3 got pay cuts" I got news for you - no first second or third year associate is a "top performer". They're a freakin trainee.

Trying to find logic in all the whining.
Is the idea that since your college overcharged you for what they delivered ("knowledge" but no job prospects) and then you opted for an overpriced Law School (still, very little knowledge of actual practical use in the sorts of firms that pay the starting salaries you are entitled to), that you are nonetheless owed some level of compensation that bails you out of your financial hole? Do you bear no responsibility for the course you took? Do the law schools bear no responsibility for failing to control the tuition hikes? I suppose your sugar-daddy mindset should be no surprise given what Uncle Sam is doing these days, but jeez, use a few brain cells, please.

As a soon to be SA, I wasn't upset about the cuts at all really. My biggest concern is that NP is stable enough to offer most summer's offers. If that's the case, 145k vs. 160k doesn't mean anything to me. I'm just happy to get a shot at big law in this economy.

130 -- At a firm where the average associate billable hours hovers around 1650, anyone who hit bonus eligibility (1950+) is a high performer in my book.

And FYI, I don't know what group you're in, but in my group, EVERYONE took a cut of about 10%, including associates who were bonus eligible. The 1st-3rd years actually got off relatively light.

So basically, you're wrong. And your "better off than 90% of the country" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight. Associates have no reason to feel guilty for making what they make given that we have to be at your beck and call 7 days a week. 90% of the country has better hours than we do.