Salary Cut Watch: Pillsbury Cuts Salaries Based on Utilization Rates
This news has been percolating around for over a week, but Above the Law is now able to report that Pillsbury Winthrop has in fact cut associate salaries.
We don’t have the official memo, but multiple sources at the firm confirm that salaries have been cut 10% - 20% based on associate utilization rates. A tipster reports:
[T]he pay cut is between 10-20% depending on current hours. The memo gave associates ranges of hours and the paycut percentage if you fell in that range. The problem [is] that no one knows how much of their pro bono (which most associates have been turning to during slow times) will count as billable so many associates are unclear what their paycut will be. The Firm looked at hours from Jan through May to make its cuts.
Other tipster report that if your utilization rates were at 90% or higher — essentially, if you are close to hitting your target hours — you received no pay cut. So, to get hit with the 20% pay cut, you had to be particularly slow.
Of course, some people were particularly slow. More details after the jump.
Obviously, it has been an unsettling year for Pillsbury associates and future associates. The firm tried a voluntary departure plan, which resulted in 55 people leaving, back in March. Many tipsters report that a significant number of first years were part of those layoffs, which hardly sounds voluntary.
Future first years haven’t done much better. The firm offered $60,000 to incoming associates in “stay away” money. No word yet on how that plan is going, but we know that the Pillsbury payment is $15,000 less than what Stroock is offering.
We have received anecdotal reports that surviving associates at firms that have had massive layoffs are actually extremely busy these days. But it doesn’t appear that Pillsbury cuts have yet resulted in an uptick in work for the remaining associates.
That puts Pillsbury in the classic squeeze many firms are looking at. It is pretty unfair for management to cut associate salaries when the partners are not generating enough work to keep everybody busy. On the other hand, it is also difficult to justify paying huge salaries to associates that are sitting on their hands and not generating money for the firm.
While Pillsbury’s cuts could be interpreted as another hit to the lockstep system, surely nobody wants to replace lockstep with a lottery.
Unfortunately, right now it appears that Pillsbury associates are in a lottery situation. If you are lucky enough to have work on your plate, you keep your salary. Otherwise, you’re looking at a cut.
Of course, people would generally rather eat a 20% pay cut than a 100% pay cut and a commemorative resume update.
Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Pillsbury’s Voluntary Departure Numbers
Pillsbury: Let’s Try This Whole ‘Voluntary Departure’ Thing One More Time




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
how are these salary cuts effecting part timers?
First to say the ship be sinking
Fat clams make too much money.
It sure would be nice if Elie did one post (just one post) on the difficulty midlevel associates are having in finding federal government positions.
You are all idiots. Seriously.
Skadden Secure
"Pillsbury is a doughy, white boy. And he makes racist pastries."
http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts-stock/white-flour/?xid=9217676d-dd27-97f4-390d-8775f5a0a8a3
-- SotomayOR!
dreadful place -- Shaw Pittman did layoffs years before the economy went south. their layoffs are never ending.
It's a frog. No wait, it's a banana. No, no, it's a frog.
Oh I give up! My head hurts!
Pillsbury also is getting bad press for having been the firm (well predecessor Shaw Pittman) that had a racist partner attack Sonia Sotomayor.
OH NO THEY DON'T WANT TO COUNT ALL MY PRO BONO TIME AS BILLABLE?!?!
"sotomayOR!" schtick is the worst thing ATL has seen in years. it's fucking terrible.
The ship be sinking...
sotomayOR! tool = marcus epstein
Elie,
What kind of reporting do you do that is not based upon "anecdotal" reports? The stuff from other blogs, and firm memos and the NYT I guess --
But it would be really nice to hear about people who are busy --
I have heard from associates there that Cleary Gottlieb is doing layoffs. Elie -- get a post together.
@4 You're having issues because you're percieved as "not dedicated to public service". Regardless of your true motives, people who started in public service look down on people who transfer into public service.
Your problem, again, lies in the fact that you are percieved as a public service "tourist". We want people who are going to spend a decade (ish).
As long as the Doughboy eats!
This is the new trend in law firms, after the salary cuts and many layoffs: salary cuts. Coming soon to YOUR firm!
Partner Emeritus,
How about reduction of partner salary?
I heard this on the train last week
I think its about time to start a dissolution watch....with measures like this Pillsbury is up there (they weren't doing great during the great years) as well as MWE.
And by the way, its been said here before but Pillsbury's logo is absolutely awful. The marketing team that came up with that should be fired.
Fuck yo couch!
What is everyone having for lunch today?
#19 - you are sucking up to an internet troll?
loser.
How is it a lottery if your plate is full of work or not? It's a logical impact of lesser associates having been cut, and thsoe who partners want to rely on getting dumped on. That's not random, it's the perverse reward an associate gets for doing good work. Thank you sir, may I have another.
-Associate billing at 150% capacity and not happy about it.
"We have received anecdotal reports that surviving associates at firms that have had massive layoffs are actually extremely busy these days."
This is big news and further demonstrates the "legal profession malaise" and "End of Biglaw" themes are a media invention.
16,
I want to spend the rest of my career in the federal gov't. I'm not a tourist. I just started off in a big law firm to pay off my student loans.
In any event, I don't think the "tourist" notion is the problem. Third-fifth year associates routinely left for the gov't from my firm pre-recession.
If anything, gov't agencies are hiring the tourists by hiring junior partners. They are going to run back to biglaw the minute the economy is strong again.
Death watch
6, that was the best link evah...
26, some anecdotal evidence is what it is, some anecdotal evidence. I know folks at over half of the V-100, no one in transactional departments is even 50% utilized, unless they are staffed on one of the handful of big deals going on right now. Banks still aren't lending = LBOs are dead, investors are holding fast to liquid capital = PE is dead, companies are worried about their own status, and aren't seeking expansion = M&A is dead.
Who is busy right now?
IP
NEW YORK TO 190!!!!!!!
(ahhhh, nostalgia....)
27:
"In any event, I don't think the "tourist" notion is the problem. Third-fifth year associates routinely left for the gov't from my firm pre-recession. "
The distinction being that prior mid-level departures were voluntary, evincing a genuine desire to change career paths. Right or wrong, the current environment has the effect of coloring all departures as involuntary.
- Another Gov't Lawyer
"It is pretty unfair for management to cut associate salaries when the partners are not generating enough work to keep everybody busy. On the other hand, it is also difficult to justify paying huge salaries to associates that are sitting on their hands and not generating money for the firm"
Partners take a pay cut automatically when they don't generate enough work to keep everyone busy. Why is it unfair to cut associate pay again?
"It is pretty unfair for management to cut associate salaries when the partners are not generating enough work to keep everybody busy. On the other hand, it is also difficult to justify paying huge salaries to associates that are sitting on their hands and not generating money for the firm"
Partners take a pay cut automatically when they don't generate enough work to keep everyone busy. Why is it unfair to cut associate pay again?
30, Corporate/M&A/securities work with smaller financial institutions is busy right now; small institutions are either looking to raise additional capital, looking for a merger partner who can salvage some value from them, or, in the case of well-run institutions, looking to expand and take advantage of the discount at which poorer run institutions are now valued. All of these require the assistance of counsel.
Patent prosecution is busy at this V50.
36, agreed, I'm aware of smaller institutions engaging in capital raise/strategic merger transactions....I also know that my contacts tell me these deals are flat fee---no billable hour structure. If Community Bank X is merging with Community Bank Y, both X and Y's lawyers are getting Z amount. Its good work for now, but not sustainable.
--30
30 - see 25.
If you aint busy, you aint good.
39, you have no idea how screwed you are.
-30 (the realist here)
35 - because partners also stand to benefit (equitably) when times are good. associates in times like these are made to have equitable stakes ("share the pain with us"), but they will not have an equitable stake in years like 2007; oh, they may get a slight bump in the form of a special bonus. but if profits increase by 27%, no associate gets an increase commensurate with that. In short, firms are using the whole equitable posture when it suits them and not using it when it doesn't. That is the problem, number 35.
33 is spot on...27 you're being unfairly lumped in with the rest of the people who are looking for gov't jobs. Unless you have lots of Pro Bono experience and can show a genuine desire for public service on your resume through non-firm-sponsored volunteer work (Soup Kitchens and stuff like that) then you're not going to get an interview.
-16
How are things going over at CWT since the layoffs last year? I've seen them on a few big deals in the last few months.
30,38 - It may not be sustainable, but if you're concerned with the near term (12-18 months), it generates income. Eighteen months out, hopefully, the economy will provide other income streams to replace or supplement.
I hate disappearing comments - time to forget about the "numbered comment" system
44, a bank deal shouldn't take more than 3-4 months of work, and as far as the 18-month outlook, I'm not confident that the current administration's "war on business" will prove fruitful for many attorneys.
-30, 38
Patent prosecution is busy at this DC boutique as well, thank god. And with the pay cuts biglaw associates have been taking, I'm now making more than a lot of them (I'm a 3rd year).
42,
I do have pro bono experience which I note in the cover letter and resume -- mostly because it shows actual litigation experience.
I would not have thought to put soup kitchen work or things like that. Does a DOJ employment committee really look for volunteer activities like that?
IP boutique very busy.
@16 - Don't be a dumbass. Many public servants transition from big law. Contrary to popular belief, you can do some significant work in Big Law in your early years besides doc review to garner some skills that will prepare you for government work. If you ask me, a large number (note I'm not saying all) of those that start off in government are those that couldn't hack it in big law, and it is quite obvious from the quality of their product. Sometimes I wonder where the hell these govt. employees come from.
46: I'm not all that confident either. However, as the administration creates more stringent regulation, businesses need attorneys to assist in crafting legal solutions to that regulation. Not saying its a net win for legal work, but there are benefits for attorneys doing compliance work (god help their souls).
44
30 - litigation is busy right now.
47: I year ya. After about crapping my pants when I lost my biglaw gig, I landed with a little botique that does the exact type of law that I desired to do. Sure, my initial salary looked paltry compared to my prior BigLaw salary, but every month my salary becomes closer and closer to BigLaw. Plus, I now don't have the billable hour pressures, am actually at a firm that is busy, and have a partner track that's almost half that of what I was facing in BigLaw. Achieving partner level income several years sooner than I could have in BigLaw more than makes up for any income lost.
Didn't think I would feel this way, but getting laid-off from BigLaw may be the best thing that could have happend to me.
41: There is no problem. When you are partner and own an interest in the firm, you can pay at will, dispensable workers as you please. Your notion that associates have to rise and fall with partners at the same level and proportion according to a strict mathematical formula is ridiculous and an argument that never wins.
Corporations function the same way. EPS can be through the roof for a particular quarter and many employees don't share it in, let alone have any equity sharing plans. Yet they can be axed at any time or suffer when profits are down.
Get over it. Or become partner and do what you want. You are not in the driver's seat. You're simply a passenger, so STFU.
Watch it 22. I am no lawyer, but that smells like trademark infringement. Although my sense of smell is a little wrecked from all the nose candy. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
43 - I second that inquiry. Chose Shearman over Cads & now I'm pissed that I won't be starting till 2020. Please someone, remind me why I didn't think twice about rejecting CWT's offer
@50 16 here (and 42). All that I am saying is that right now there are a glut of lawyers and you have to make yourself stand out. Nowhere did I say that BigLaw doesn't prepare one to work outside of BigLaw. Your lack of reading comprehension makes me wonder if you are one of those shitty gov't lawyers that couldn't hack it in BigLaw.
CWT will survive. Their business model is basically sound. When the economy changes, CWT fires BOTH the unproductive associates AND partners. CWT then hires busy lateral partners and their associates. When the economy changes again, those partners and associates will be fired and replaced with newer, busier partners and associates.
Not a great place to work, and a firm that very likely to eventually fire you. While all the people at the firm will always be coming and going, the firm itself will survive. And, at the end of the day, that's what's important, isn't it?
CWT will survive. Their business model is basically sound. When the economy changes, CWT fires BOTH the unproductive associates AND partners. CWT then hires busy lateral partners and their associates. When the economy changes again, those partners and associates will be fired and replaced with newer, busier partners and associates.
Not a great place to work, and a firm that very likely to eventually fire you. While all the people at the firm will always be coming and going, the firm itself will survive. And, at the end of the day, that's what's important, isn't it?
53,
Could you share a little more about what practice area you are in and the timing of things (when did you lose your job, how long were you unemployed, how long have you been at the boutique)? Also, how did you find the job? Many thanks
As a county law librarian, I work mainly with solo, small law firm lawyers and self-representing litigants.
I feel sorry for the law firm librarians affected.
But daily, I work with many lower/mid-classes people who can not find/afford legal representation. Overall, county law libraries in California does a good job at empowering people. But just like giving people a wrench doesn't make them auto mechanic, giving people access to legal information is still far from giving them actual representation.
Isn't it funny how lawyers complains about not having jobs, while many people are complaining about not able to find lawyers to represent them?
I would like to echo what has been said re: lumping mid-levels who really want to work in government with those trying to jump ship due to the economy.
I would also like to add another reason why the federal government isn't interested in hiring many biglaw midlevels - what skills do you have to offer, other than doc review? Have you ever written a motion for summary judgment? What about a motion to dismiss? Ever argued a motion in court? Have you ever taken or defended a deposition? Have you ever led a trial, or even ever gone to trial? Have you ever had the opportunity to call the shots on what motions to file in case?
If you answered "no" to most of those questions, what on earth makes you think you could compete with attorneys who went right to the DOJ (through the AG Honors Program or otherwise), or spent their first few years out of school working at a DA's or Public Defender's office?
Hate to crush your ego, but your 3 years of doc review at a Vault 10 firm are NOT that impressive. Even if you graduated at the top of your class from a top school (which the vast majority if you did), in the past few years you haven't acquired any skills that would help you handle the amount of responsibility you would be given in a job at DOJ.
Good luck.
Government attorneys are being very naive if they really think that a young associate is going to be more of a "tourist" than a junior partner. Junior partners will bolt the minute the law firm business turns around, especially since the government experience will have made them more marketable.
And what about a federal clerkship? Does that demonstrate a commitment to government service or do you guys just look down on that as a prestige grab? I'm guessing the latter, even though quite a few clerks do it out of a sense of service.
All in all, I think government attorneys are relishing the misery a little too much. You have become what you hate.
It's about time those underperforming lawyers took a pay cut. I worked with a few lawyers who did not even bill 100 hours in three months and they are still at the firm. Maybe now they might think about drumming up some business?
This former Pillsbury staffer worked 70 hours per week for three years until March of this year and what do I have to show for it? A 100% pay cut.
62,
The problem with this argument is that DOJ routinely hired third-fifth year associates from biglaw pre-recession.
Also, I have done many of the things you list and note it when I apply.
I think the issue here is partners taking the jobs that formerly went to associates. Not associates lacking the ability to handle them.
To address 62's points, how common is it that associates in Years 1-3 don't do any substantive work?
As a 1L-2L, before I switched into transactions I had:
Managed a doc review team.
Drafted an amended cross-complaint.
Drafted Motions to Compel.
Drafted Declarations (including working closely with client declarations).
Drafted Expert Reports (working with experts).
Drafted Portions of Briefing Opposing a PI.
Drafted various discovery-related docs (Response to RFPs, Interrogatories)
Prepared Deposition Outlines
Attended a depo (with the chance to take one, but the case settled before the opportunity)
Preliminary work on MSJ (stopping because the case settled).
This was mostly in connection with one active case. Is this not common experience for juniors in big law? I'm at an AmLaw 20.
To address 62's points, how common is it that associates in Years 1-3 don't do any substantive work?
As a 1L-2L, before I switched into transactions I had:
Managed a doc review team.
Drafted an amended cross-complaint.
Drafted Motions to Compel.
Drafted Declarations (including working closely with client declarations).
Drafted Expert Reports (working with experts).
Drafted Portions of Briefing Opposing a PI.
Drafted various discovery-related docs (Response to RFPs, Interrogatories)
Prepared Deposition Outlines
Attended a depo (with the chance to take one, but the case settled before the opportunity)
Preliminary work on MSJ (stopping because the case settled).
This was mostly in connection with one active case. Is this not common experience for juniors in big law? Admittedly all my work was reviewed by a more senior associate, but still, I got first crack at many things of substance. I'm at an AmLaw 20.
64 - sorry but you are obsolete
66 - You did get more substantive writing experience in your first two years than many junior associates at big firms.
However, think if you went to the DOJ after your second year and a case got dropped on your desk. It was yours and yours only; no senior associate, no partner. You get to call the shots. Would you even know where to begin? I'm guessing you, like many junior to midlevel associates, wouldn't have a clue. In contrast, many government attorneys are given their own cases from day one. If you had to compete with them, they would leave you in dust.
I'm not trying to attack your or anyone else's intellegence, it's just something that biglaw doesn't teach young associates. You're just so far down the chain that you don't play a role in the decisionmaking process of determining how to procede with a trial. Yes, you drafted all of those motions, but did you play a role in deciding that those were the motions that needed to be filed? If you did, then you were given an exceptional amount of responsibility as a junior associate.
I would imagine a lot of laid off to junior to midlevels would encounter this problem at smaller firms, too. If you never learn how to procede with a trial, there comes a point when you really can't continue to coin yourself as a litigator.
69 - don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it would be an easy direct transition or that I, or anyone similarly situated would be directly qualified. I'm not sure how pay scale/levels work in the govt. if you transfer, says as a 4th year from big law. If you're expected to perform as a 4th year govt. worker who worked govt. from the start of his/her career, then yes, big law guy would be left in the dust. But if big law is viewed as a step behind needing some training, at least, at first, then the learning curve won't be as steep for big law transfer than it would be for someone else.
This comment is addressed to post no. 67.
Congratulations on your fine accomplishments. You certainly have the qualifications to be a paralegal at a peer firm as you have represented mastering the tasks that we assign most of our paralegals at the firm. When you are outplaced from your current place of employment, please feel free to send us your resume for consideration of a paralegal position. Your dreams of supervising a doc review team again may be within reach.
58: 3 months; network, network, network, network, and then, network some more; go to CLEs related to your desired practice area (yes, pay your own way...its worth it), go to all of your local Bar events where you might meet some attorneys outside of your current network but in your desired practice area...just take advantage of opportunities to meet other attorneys in your desired practice area; if not currently employed, seek out contract work with small, mid-size firms (no, not with placement agencies, but in your own right where you will get to meet people who could hire you); and, if you are unemployed, don't hide yourself b/c of it. Most attorneys, especially those outside of BigLaw, know a lot of talented attorneys have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Unless other attorneys know you are available for work, they won't think of you when an opportunity might come.
Lastly, don't confine yourself to exploring opportunities in your desired practice area. You might actually find you enjoy something else, or it could lead to meeting an attorney who is in your desired practice area. Don't bother submitting resumes to places you don't already have a contact. Concentrate on those firms where you know an attorney, or have a common friend of an attorney, etc. (no matter how distant the connection). Good luck.
Classic post, PE
67, PE just crushed you.
"We have received anecdotal reports that surviving associates at firms that have had massive layoffs are actually extremely busy these days. But it doesn't appear that Pillsbury cuts have yet resulted in an uptick in work for the remaining associates."
--And which firms are those?
"We have received anecdotal reports that surviving associates at firms that have had massive layoffs are actually extremely busy these days. But it doesn't appear that Pillsbury cuts have yet resulted in an uptick in work for the remaining associates."
--And which firms are those?
"We have received anecdotal reports that surviving associates at firms that have had massive layoffs are actually extremely busy these days. But it doesn't appear that Pillsbury cuts have yet resulted in an uptick in work for the remaining associates."
--And which firms are those?
This is great news for Pillsbury's current summer associates. I'm sure they're having a great time getting work.
73 and 74 = PE.
Could somebody please send PE back to Arizona or whatever hellhole he crawled out of?
Partner Emeritus works for a White Shoe firm somewhere in New England or the Mid Atlantic. He couldn't talk like that from behind a computer out in West where they are lean and mean.
Partner Emeritus works for a White Shoe firm somewhere in New England or the Mid Atlantic. He couldn't talk like that from behind a computer out in West where they are lean and mean.
This is great. I'm well and truly excited that so many rat bastard greedy new attorneys have lost it all. Great, great is the word that comes to mind.
I know for a fact that the Real Estate associates have been paid at 90 percent but expected to work at 100 percent utilization for at least three months. PIllsbury is going down! (and will treat its associates like crap along the way)
54 nailed it.
So this means the incompetent associate next door who takes forever to complete their work, and the associate down the hall who pads their hours, are now earning more than me. Thank you Pillsbury for punishing associates who are skilled, efficient, and honest.