foist

boo ya

Oh Yeah, FIRST!

foist

Career Attys will be paid less, required to bill 2000, will need little overhead, and will be mostly profitable.

Say goodbye to the partner track!

Oh Yeah, FIRST!

2-5 = massive fail

9th! Woo hoo!

Orrick blows.

Amazing that there's so much push back to the idea that law firm compensation should resemble compensation for...every other business. This is a huge announcement, one that will infect every other biglaw firm by the time it's over. Lockstep is over, $160k is over, associates will finally be paid what they're worth--for better and for worse.

2-5 = massive fail

Oh Yeah, FIRST!

Oh Yeah, FIRST!

Oh Yeah, FIRST!

The sky has officially fallen. How long before my V5 does this?

Gut reaction: oh no! miniscule partnership chances at every firm just became even smaller! and salaries are sure to go next!

Second reaction: hrm... on the other hand, lockstep kinda does suck, and this might relieve some of the up-or-out pressure. This is the only industry where we force out talented, experienced labor that doesn't have a book of business. Every other field knows how to just price it appropriately, pay it appropriately, and assign it appropriately.

everyone at Orrick is so hosed

"Here's how the law firm describe...." Elie, I am not one that has ever complained about your fucking illiteracy, but my god! Every fucking post is awful. You get paid to cut and paste and you don't even do that well. I challenge you to not fuck up for one day...tomorrow. I'll be watching. Who's with me?

Is there such a shortage of U.S. lawyers and law graduates that it is necessary to keep importing foreign attorneys to practice in the United States?

Recent posts estimate that foreign lawyers account for around 15% of positions in BigLaw. Is the country going to collapse if U.S. corporations don't have foreign attorneys drafting the agreements, structuring their taxes, and defending them from American citizens in court?

I don't know how much the West Virginia career attorneys make, but I've seen on pre-bills that their rates are lower than non-attorneys in the other offices.

19, protectionism is so 18th century.

19 -- shut the fuck up already! Law firms will continue to hire the best people, irrespective of citizenship. Sorry you couldn't make the cut, bro.

Any discretion on the part of any law firm will be used to screw you. Seriously.

Ok...fatty corrected it. The challenge is still on though.

-18

19 - STFU. The foreign lawyers can't help it if you suck so badly no V5 firm wants to touch you with a wooden pole. Its because of whiners like you that foreigners become more palatable.

MysT4L, you suck and have been demoted a tier.

19 raises a good point. Does the United States need more lawyers?

the next step is to end lockjaw

"Our new Talent Model recognizes that not all associates advance at the same pace..."

Predicted it here first--Ms. Georgia = Orrick equity partner, Feb., 2015.

Orrick is abolishing something that firms have viewed as positive for a century. The only reason to do this is partner greed.

27 - STFU. The foreign lawyers can't help it if you suck so badly no V5 firm wants to touch you with a wooden pole. Its because of whiners like you that foreigners become more palatable.

19 and 27 - repeat after me - law firms OWE no duty whatsoever to hire Americans. Law firms only care about hiring the best and brightest whatever their gender, nationality, race, sexual orientation etc - you know that's what private enterprise is about.

Incidentally, if you're advocating the protectionist angle, other countries should do the same thing and have American lawyers from the UK, Hong Kong, Singapore etc be expelled because those countries and cities also have a surfeit of unemployed lawyers.

I graduated from a T14 AND I DESERVE MY $160,000 REWARD.

Let the battle of the sycophants begin!

What's the prevailing impression of the performance of foreign LLMs in Biglaw?

Do you think clients are so stupid that they don't notice the partners are making $1.5 million a year? The "high costs" of legal work is not the fault of junior associates. It is the fault of the greedy partners that insist on making over $1m a year.

"Clients should not bare the cost of training associates, but they should paid for my third wife's boob job."

19 & 27 - "You raise a good point, does the US need more lawyers".

No the US doesn't need any more crap lawyers, but guess what the foreign lawyers aren't the crap lawyers. We are the cream of the crop from offshore and yes we are taking your job even if you happened to graduate from a T25 law school. Graduating top of the class from a foreign law school > middle of T25 USNWR school.

Suck (my foreign) it, XENOPHOBES!

Orrick associates get double pwned. First, by the end of lockstep. Second, for having a managing partner named RALPH BAXTER.

38 is a reKNOB.

Does this apply to the associates that are part of the Amish Outreach Program (OAP)?

41 here: Oops, meant to say "AOP". This is a great program, and I hope that it is not affected.

first

If NY doesn't go lockstep, the best associates will avoid Orrick. Then again, given their layoffs, most already are.

This would be an interesting development if there was any chance that ANY associate stood to benefit financially from this change. But let's be honest with ourselves - this is nothing more than a fancy scheme to lower associate salaries.

I'd be willing to bet that the base compensation for all Associates is going to be the same, no matter how long they've been Associates - and the base comp for all Managing Associates is going to be the same, no matter how long they've been Managing Associates, and the same for Senior Associates.

On top of that, the only way they can do away with the "up or out" model is to let you languish as an Associate for 5 or 6 years, rather than promote you to Managing Associate - which means they can keep you employed, but you'll ALWAYS be making a first-year salary (which is sure to be less than it is right now). I'm also betting that there's no way any associate could ever advance FASTER under their new scheme.

Last I checked law firms had exactly one revenue source: clients. So clients are going to pay for training one way or another.

Or is Orrick coming out and saying it will no longer train associates? Do they really think that they will find skilled lawyers who don't care about professional growth?

What a dump.

I'm a jobless rising 3L at Michigan and I want to kill myself.

Foreign attorneys shall remain in their foreign lands. The end.

Only in the pathetically risk-averse legal community would it be unsurprising that the "best" associates will go to lockstep firms where they are paid exactly the same amount as the worst associates.

I for one will be more than happy to commence pounding the Talent Model in the ass!

ORRICK TO GIVE ASSOCIATES "MOAR BAREBACK"

Are asslobsters graded equally for the pay scale as foreign attorneys?

49, there are much better ways of managing things that are fair and equitable and reward talent and merit. Orrick can't do it because it's a festering toilet and can't afford to.

The best method of associate compensation is an up-and-out model of lockstep salary (current salary-grade) but MERIT-based bonuses. Few firms are diversified enough and profitable enough in this economy to be able to do this.

@47 don't fret, there's always BIGAUTO

I will never allow anyone to pound me in the ass.

Lewis Ziccarelli

Foreign Attorneys are the biggest dunces of the whole legal ponzi scheme, plus they smell.

This plan has zero chance of working out well. What are these clowns thinking?

For those who actually think the phrase "our goal is not to decrease associate compensation" means what it appears to imply, here's what it actually means (other than the initially left-out follow up phrase "but its a great side effect!"):

We are going to cut base salaries significantly, but tell all of our associates that the range of available bonuses will expand significantly as well, meaning that the same amount of money (or perhaps even more!) is on the table for you to claim. All you have to do is earn your "full" bonus and you will make the same (or more!) as you would have under the old system.

But we're not tying it entirely to hours, the bonus decision will be "discretionary." We'll make it sound like this is great for associates, because now we can take all of your wonderful intangibles like the fantastic quality of your work, participation on firm committees, herculean recruiting efforts, and work on service projects into account for you. We could give you your "full" bonus even if your hours aren't crushing, because of our discretion and your other contributions to the firm!

We won't. "Discretionary" means that you need to bill those crushing hours that used to bring an automatic level of bonus, but now you have no valid "claim" to the money. Nobody will get the "full" bonus that would cause your overall compensation to be commensurate with what you would have received under the old system. Or perhaps 1 person will, so we can tell you full bonuses are achieveable without being struck by lightning.

You make less, we distribute the savings to ourselves. You cannot complain about your pitiful bonus, because now it is equivalent to admitting that we found your performance unsatisfactory when applying our "discretion." What if all of your friends and colleagues made a higher bonus? Can you risk the professional humiliation? The consequential drop in your self-confidence will also make it easier for us to keep you in line in the future, and make you believe your eventual layoff (should it come to that to keep our PPP up) actually IS performance based.

Get back to work.

"What are non-partner track associates going to get?"

If they are "non-partner track" why are they still there?

53, what's the difference between a merit-based salary that ranges from $160k to $200k, and a "lockstep" salary of $160k plus a merit-based bonus that ranges from $0k to $40k? Do you understand how labeling a paycheck a "salary" or a "bonus" makes no actual economic difference?

10 - Not true, doctors in a given practice group that are not partners are generally paid lockstep. It would be rediculous for a medical practice to say that they pay their good doctors more than their crappy doctors. What do you tell the patient who is assigned the crappy doctor? There is a presumption of competence in a professional environment, and poor professionals are not kept around but paid less. This used to be true in law too, back when it was a profession.

58 = hilarious but true post.

58, you forgot the final part of the equation, which is extreme pressure on associates not to discuss their compensation with other associates. Ending lockstep means no one knows what anyone else is making, which makes it easier for the firm to pay everyone less. The associates will gobble this up because 90% of associates think they are better than average.

#58: Bones Gay burnout

What's funny is that you all think there will actually BE bonuses this year.

This will be a year without boni.

The pulling up of the partnership ladder is nearly complete.

60, there would be no difference. Except the so-called merit-based salaries proposed by Orrick are probably both going to be low and limited to three different levels. And unlikely to truly be tied to merit and performance.

Intelligent and profitable firms such as K & E still are setting an appropriate level of base compensation by class-year and awarding additional bones based on hours and quality of work.

Foreign associates are OTB

I'm a jobless rising 3L at Michigan and I want to kill myself.

QUINN REMAINS lockstep

63- YOU assume that all biglaw associates are insecure, overly competitive, and have a misplaced sense of self-entitlement. Oh wait, nevermind.

Yup 58 pretty much nailed it.

65, there will be bonuses. But you're right in that not all firms will pay them, and among the firms that do, not all associates will get one.

Foreign Associates SCARE the crap out of US lawyers as most of you know we are willing to work harder and most of us have a much down to earth view of the world which helps us in many networking respects.

Orrick's idea blows. Who the hell is going to want to not be on the partner track anyway. This profession is going to only become more competitive.

Foreign Associates SCARE the crap out of US lawyers as most of you know we are willing to work harder and most of us have a much down to earth view of the world which helps us in many networking respects.

Orrick's idea blows. Who the hell is going to want to not be on the partner track anyway. This profession is going to only become more competitive.

69 pretty much nailed it.

Do you think Ralph Baxter was ever stuffed into a locker?

So... hypothetically...
What if you're a (good) T14 student with no debt who doesn't care about money? (Okay, of course I want to make some money. Say the equivalent of $80-100k in Chicago per year for the rest of my life, adjusted for inflation. But not the kind of money most T14 students are envisioning.) I want to do some interesting and tough work--long hours and stress are fine, so long as the work is decent. I've got a COA clerkship to keep me occupied for a year, and offers for biglaw prospects after that. But it seems that the appeal of Biglaw diminshes a little every day for people like me (illusions of bonuses and such have no effect). Should I start scoping out DC even if my political party will never again command a majority? How do you go about becoming a career law clerk?

I am nailing #58 right now!

....oh my god.. I am SOO entitled to make 160k plus bonus... I mean WTF

Yes, but does the United States really need to be flooding itself with foreign attorneys, even if they did well in school in their own countries?

One way to look at it is they've just gone from 8 salary levels for associates to three. Assuming, as would be logical, it takes 2-3 years for the first promotion even for strong performers, then one difference from lockstep will be no salary increase for the first couple years, even for top performers.

I think to make this fly they are going to have to at least pretend that high-fliers who have been being "held back" by lockstep will be able to move up faster than under the old system.

In India, most attorneys have 6 arms. How can we compete with that?

2 armed counselor

Give me one good reason why country needs to be importing more lawyers.

I am bleaching my Orrick right now.

Multitasking, bitches!

84 - Here's your reason: some of the "imported" lawyers are better than the domestic lawyers.

What is a slobster?

How about law schools training students to be lawyers? What a concept!

Orrick is quite possibly the most TTT firm around. If firm mgmt continues to bend over and take it in the a--, Baxter is going to run them straight into the ground.

84,

Do you think clients are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between work done by a foreign associate with an LLM and the inferior American associates?

58 and 63 are spot on. In principle, this all may sound like a utopian meritocracy. In practice - and this is proven by the practices of american law firms in emerging markets where they rarely have lockstep models and have similarly tiered systems of associates (albeit with different names) - this all results in a lack of transparancy, nepotism and a massive screwage of anyone with a weaker bargaining position (those with high student loan burden, those with dependends and those not "connected", please stand up). And the lack of transparency is not to be underestimated in its devastating effect: when no can monitor bad behavior by the management, bad behavior will run rampant.

DLgAy

Good call by Orrick. End of associates' sense of entitlement.

58 - That's why firms are lockstep in the first place. Law students may be dumb, but they're smart enough to figure out that the lawyers who employ them will f*** them given half a chance. Lockstep is the logical result.

The difference between "salary" and "bonus", btw, is not just in name. There are tax consequences (ie: bonii are taxed as capital gains and salary is not).

58 nailed it!

Wow...... #58 nice post.

And like another post said--if this discourages associates discussing compensation it will make it much easier for the firm to discriminate against women and minorities......

Why pay someone without a penis and white skin the same as people who do.......? I know, let's just say that pay is "discretionary" and knock off 15% of minority associates' pay..... they can't prove we are discriminating.... it is "discretionary."

Salary levels need to be public. Bonuses need to be public. Period.

#10: what businesses are you talking about? "Talent"-based compensation systems tend to only find their use at the higher levels of management - where both sides have adequate bargaining power and the are not so many people to think about that a compensation committe can realistically evaluate the performance of an individual. For law firm associates in organizations the size of Skadden or White and Case, junior associates are so perfectly interchangeable and so many in number that there is no way that compensation decisions will be anything other than arbitrary. And please don't tell me that a second year is going to dare to open his mouth if the management decides that he is "custom" material that deserves 110K per year only.

#10: what businesses are you talking about? "Talent"-based compensation systems tend to only find their use at the higher levels of management - where both sides have adequate bargaining power and the are not so many people to think about that a compensation committe can realistically evaluate the performance of an individual. For law firm associates in organizations the size of Skadden or White and Case, junior associates are so perfectly interchangeable and so many in number that there is no way that compensation decisions will be anything other than arbitrary. And please don't tell me that a second year is going to dare to open his mouth if the management decides that he is "custom" material that deserves 110K per year only.

I hope 95 is an Orrick tax associate. I mean, career attorney.

95 - what are you smoking? Have you received a bonus check yet at all? Do you even understand a concept of a "capital gain"?

95: wrong - a cash bonus constitutes ordinary income, and is taxed at ordinary income tax rates. If you don't believe me (and have ever, in fact, received a bonus), look at the accompanying list of deductions. The Fed/state/local deductions will be at the same rate as apply to your biweekly/monthly pay check.

The ship be sinking...

Its funny. I-banks are adopting law firm payscales and law firms are adopting i-bank pay scales.

1. 58 nailed the nail right on the head

2. Does anyone else find the phrase "Global Operations Center in Wheeling, West Virginia" to be hilariously oxymoronic?

94-

Indeed.

-58

58 for the win!

In a prior life at a technology company, bonus was taxed at 44% while salary was taxed at 28%. Maybe my company fucked it up and calculated the higher tax rate by taking the bonus amount and expanding it to 26 pay-periods and then calculating the tax rate, but I don't think that was what was happening.

I could be wrong.

-95

The only thing that matters in terms of judging associates is billed/collected hours, plus realized rate. This has not changed, and it won't change any time soon. These law firms can say what they want, but they don't give a shit about anything other than profitability. As for partnership track, very few associates ever make partner in BigLaw. If you want to be a partner, you best go to MidLaw or DipshitLaw. As for pounding in the ass, this is how associates are expected to live until they leave the firm. The firm pounds them in the ass, the associates eat the leavings, and life goes on.

95 - capital gains rates are less than most ordinary income rates (currently 15%, I believe). Often bonuses are taxed at the highest possible ordinary income rate, accounting for the apparent disparity you note in your 108 post.

Does Kash believe in heavy petting on the first date?

58 -- comment of the week. This is EXACTLY what the new compensation system means.

Look, if you don't agree with a firm's hiring, retention, or advancement policies, then DON'T WORK THERE. I have zero sympathy for people who whine about how they can't make a life for themselves by making in the $100K range. Guess what? Most people do. And they live in NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, SF, Atlanta, and places in between. And a lot of them have tons of school debt and living expenses!

In any event, most of you law students and junior associates aren't going to make partner anyway (even under the old models), so take the opportunity to make $150 or so for a few years, don't blow it on fancy apartments or 3-series BMWs, learn a skill, and then go out on your own where you can keep what you kill. Then you can decide that you want to share your kill with under-skilled, prestigiously-educated 25 year-olds who demand compensation increases simply because the earth made another rotation around the sun.

95, 110: Bonuses are often withheld at higher rates than periodic wages, but don't let that fool you, it's ordinary income and it's taxed at the same rate (unless it puts you into a higher bracket, obviously)...

95 FTW. Best above the law comment ever.

Amen #19, glad someone finally said it.

How can US JDs compete with foreign attorneys with their 1 year of legal education taking our jobs here in US, while a bulk of the legal work is increasingly outsourced to India; and especially in light of what are now the most important factors for law firms -- pro bono work and diversity.

There's no hope

109 wrote:

"The only thing that matters in terms of judging associates is billed/collected hours, plus realized rate."

How do you reconcile that with foreign LLMs claims that they are displacing U.S. citizens in practice within the United States because they are the "best and the brightest." Do foreign attorneys tend to bill more collectible hours than U.S. attorneys?

108, probably what happened is that your bonus pushed you into a higher tax bracket.

Foreign attorneys: 15% of biglaw and rising.

95/108, learn what is a "capital gain" and at what rate they are taxed. Also learn how withholding taxes are not a true measure of your tax liability or your tax rate.

116 - How can you compete: here's a thought - how about reducing the whining and increasing the effort? Since foreign lawyers in big law typically get paid the same as you do, it just means that any increase in foreign lawyer numbers in the US can only be explained by them being better than any of the people they replaced. That's not to say all foreign lawyers are good (hell, I've seen many that are bad), but very few who continually whine about how difficult their life is.

117 - Because they put in more hours and spend less time on boards like this whining away?

I wonder if law schoolc will issue a concomitant tuition reduction.

Are the last two paragraphs of the memo suggesting that some associates consider a transfer to Wheeling, WV or assuming one of the alternate roles ("document assembler")?

95, 108 and 118 just confirm that non-tax lawyers shouldn't open their mouths about tax issues. Makes me feel confident in my job security.

oooh, where do i sign up? [note sarcasm]

95/108 - are you learning impaired? You may have been withheld at a 44% rate including state, federal, FICA, etc - but you are taxed on the rate of your total ordinary income for the year -

I don't know why anyone would willing buy anything other than the top of line Orecks.

108, your prior company did indeed mess it up.

They simply relied upon their payroll processor's automatic calculation function which takes the bonus amount input for a given pay period and extrapolates that out over a fully year's gross and taxes it accordingly.

Methinks there are lots of people here that have a. never received said bonii and b. really, really need to Google how our tax system works.

Just your typical non-attorney legal staffer

Incoming Orrick first-year here. I read about this on ATL and blew off Bar/Bri for the day to drink all afternoon instead . . . in celebration.

Let me explain.

When I decided to go to law school it was with the intention of working for a big law firm, but I had no idea what biglaw attorneys were paid. When I finally looked this up (and stumbled upon ATL in the process) at the beginning of my 2L year, I was stunned. $160k? Is this some sort of joke? When I worked as a summer associate at Orrick, my mom’s favorite trick was to tell friends and family members, “guest has a paid internship with a law firm this summer!” The informee of this piece of information would invariably ask, “Wow! How much are they paying him?” To which my mother would reply, “$3100 . . . . . . . . . . per week!” This never failed to strike people as completely insane., I bought a new car (with a nice warranty and everything!) outright with my summer associate earnings, the first vehicle I have ever owned.

Even had I done my due diligence and researched biglaw attorney salaries when i was gearing up to take the LSAT and apply to law school, my findings would have been astounding to me. $135k? That’s nuts! The extra $25k is just gravy on top.

I am a bright guy. After struggling to find myself through the first couple years of college, I aced my remaining classes in a very difficult major. I didn’t study at all for the LSAT, but got a good enough score to go to any school which I applied to. I went to the highest-ranked T1 which offered me a full scholarship. In retrospect, despite all this, the *only* way I was going to be making $160k+ 3 years out of undergrad was to go to law school and head to biglaw.

Today’s announcement from Orrick is fantastic news for me. No longer is Orrick “up or out,” it’s “up or not.” I predicted with precision which of the senior associates from my office would be laid off in the last round of cuts from Orrick. All of these laid-off attorneys were wonderful people and remarkably capable attorneys. They just weren’t partner material (although one of them clearly thought he was). If these attorneys had been shunted onto the non-partner track or kept as associates or managing associates, they probably would not have been laid off. Instead, junior attorneys making the same rate as these senior associates, but with less experience and equally dim prospects for partnership, would have been laid off in their stead.

Like I said before, the *only* way I was going to be making $160k+ 3 years out of undergrad was to go to law school and head to biglaw. I would be content to make $160k plus the occasional bonus, adjusted for inflation, for the next 20 years. Orrick’s new talent model will let me do that, all the while allowing me to take a shot and see if I am biglaw partner material. I have no idea what’s not to like here.

I have been poor my entire life. Increased income causes increased happiness, but only to a point. The marginal utility of increased income past a first-year associate’s salary decreases remarkably sharply. I know now that when I show up at Orrick, I merely need to keep my head down and put my hard work and hours in for a few years. After that, the firm will find a place for me. That place may be as a partner, or it may be making comparatively little money to my peers at other firms. I don’t give a shit. I will be making more money than I ever could have hoped to otherwise.

Orrick’s move today will attract clients. No longer will clients be be paying to train attorneys, but the government and competitors will. That’s right. Today’s announcement couples nicely with a strategy of increasing lateral hires coupled with somewhat fewer organic partners. This is great news for those already on the boat, like me.

So many comment posters here seem to me to be coming from bizarro entitlement world. Newsflash. A good percentage of biglaw attorneys are the first upper middle-class people in their families, like me. We’re just as bright as the rest of our colleagues, but not so damned money-grubbing. A biglaw firm could do well hiring an increased ratio of these attorneys.

19 and 27 and other xenophobes,

You are pathetic cowards.

Don't be afraid of competition from afar - put up or shut up.

Biglaw firms, especially international firms, want the best and hire the best. Do you really think that law students with mediocre grades from mediocre US law schools can compete with the top 5% of Canadian, Australian or British applicants?

If so, then you're also a moron.

Go tune on Lou Dobbs and retreat back into your protectionist caves, Messers Smoot and/or Hawley

124, I think the word you're looking for is "smug."

Good for you, buddy. You enjoy that feeling while you can.

129, interesting perspective. My immediate gut reaction was not as positive, although I share your attitude toward the associate salary entirely - no matter what, it's going to feel like a fortune to me.

Maybe I'm just ambivalent because recently the only good news has been no news.

Interested to hear what other incoming first-years think, and what others think incoming first-years should think.

129, you were obviously telling the truth when you said you skipped barbri to go drinking.

You *almost got* the happiness thing right. ALMOST. Except it's not about some objective number after which marginal utility increases wane. It's about TIME. After TIME, you get used to making any amount of money, but you continue to associate with people making more than you, which decreases your happiness. It happens to every single person on earth, whether they're making 30k or 30M. It's one of those ugly parts of human nature.

In a way, I envy your naivete thinking that simply working hard and doing a good job will get you, hell, job security, let alone additional financial rewards. You are a far happier person than I am. You also have a hell of a lot more disappointment ahead of you than (I hope) I do. I feel for you, having been there myself. But try not to act so cock-sure of yourself. You've never held a real 9 to 5 job, let alone a professional one. It is miserable, it is thankless, it is the definition of unfair. You will see inferior coworkers get better assignments than you through a combination of their ability to target and kiss the right asses and luck. You will have unreasonable demands placed on your time without so much as a "thank you." You will do amazing work, have it ripped to shreds by one partner, redo it to that partner's liking, and then have a different partner rip you to shreds for not doing it the way you had done it in the first place. You will have average to good performance reviews and wonder why you still get stuck with all the doc review/due diligence projects as a fourth year. It will drive you mad. You will begin to drink excessively and you will start spending all those gobs of money that right now is more than you can even imagine sneezing at. On booze, on expensive food, on new cars, on fancy electronics, on courtside/endzone/etc. sports tickets, on empty and meaningless dates leading to empty and meaningless sex, and on any number of other crutches you'll lean on the fill the void you suddenly find in your life. You will be destroyed from the inside out and wonder how on earth you were ever so foolish to think that 160k, or 100k, or whatever amount you think to be so magically much, could ever possibly make you anything approaching happy.

And you will hate your firm for using you, chewing you up, and spitting you out, without even having the decency to pay you a fair wage for your soul.

Good luck on the bar exam...

LOL @ incoming first years who actually believe they will start at their respective firms. News flash: there is currently too much capacity in terms of associates! Your firms don't want you, and will likely be pushing back your start date again and again until the economy picks up (in 2020 or so).

133 -

Thank you.

I have held a 9-5 for 7 years, in the aggregate. I know what it's like.

I am happily married. As long as I make enough money to support a family, I will be content. Having a go-see on a "partnership track" is pure bonus. thanks for the well-wishes.

-129

Ahhhh, how cute, 129. As 133 points out, you will soon find out why firms have had to pay that much for associates, but in the meantime, I hope you and your mom have a great time telling people about your awesome new job.

Worried about the glut of lawyers out there? Start asking your congressperson why he or she supports a law that continues to issue student and work visas to foreign attorneys.

Some estimate that 20% of the associates in Biglaw are non-U.S. citizens. Those are numbers that could make a big difference.

129/135, I apologize for assuming you didn't work before college -- I saw that you were heading to law school straight out of college so I assumed you were 25-ish.

129,

I had this thought years ago with my firm. I thought oh they keep a lot of people on as counsel and as long as I do good work I can at least fall back on that and make more money than I'll ever need.

Well, instead, they want partner level work from everyone. The only difference is that people do not make partner when they lack a business case (or one partner does not like you.)

Unfortunately, most law firms do not have room for people who do good work but want to work less than 2000 hours. You have to be a woman with an infant to get that part time job and even then only for so many years.

To stay at a law firm, expect to always do what they ask, never complain, and bill at least 2000 hours per year. Otherwise they'll ask you to go (the firmness of that request will depend on the economy).

Great sense of entitlement 136. I don't know anybody who i grew up with who wouldn't take a job @ 2000 billable or even 3000 actual hours/year for $160k+

A job that pays well over $50/hour? With a guaranteed 3000 hours per year? Where do I sign up?

129/140. That's exactly my point. It sounds too good to be true, right? Trust me -- you are not unique in this respect. Many of us have been where you are now and had the same thoughts. Wait until you've done this for three, four, five..... years and see how your feelings change. I'm not critcizing you -- I can understand where you are coming from -- I once thought the same way. The view is just different on this side of things.

Why is ATL so full of people who complain about how much young lawyers make in big law firms, and constantly accuse them of being "entitled?" And why do they all assume first and second-year attorneys don't "add value" when they start work? Is it all those undergrad engineers who spent their UG career sneering at the business and liberal arts majors (I was an engineering major briefly - I know this happened), who are now mad that the poli sci majors are making so much money?

Law firm salaries are determined just like every other salary - by competition to attract talent. Believe it or not, the people who go to the top law schools would own 95% of the rest of the world in just about ANY job, regardless of what they majored in during college. Law students - aka "Poli sci sh*theads who've never worked a 9-5 job" - are obviously hard workers if they kick ass in college, cream the LSAT, and do better than most of their peers during the pressure cooker of law school. 99% of Americans hold a 9-5 job at some point in their lives. Very few, however, are smart enough or work hard enough to get into the best law schools and to survive at the best firms.

Do you entry-level engineers and business majors think that your spreadsheets and AutoCAD drawings are adding so much more value to your employer than the work done by junior attorneys? Please.

When your employer has a big case or a major deal (where the amounts of money at stake make all of our salaries appear paltry), they go to big law firms that pay people a lot. Sure, your employer could hire a bunch of in-house attorneys and pay them $80K/year to do their corporate work. Or they could go with a local 10-person firm to defend them in court on a $200M case (those guys would love the opportunity). But they don't. Why don't they? You know why.

Yes, clients pay for lawyer training. But this is just like the rest of the business world. The cost of our training is built into the cost of the services we provide later in life when we are more valuable. Just like you, whatever your job happens to be. Who pays for the training of doctors? Patients. Who pays for the training of engineers? Whoever buys their employer's products or services. Who pays for the training of investment bankers and financial analysts and accountants and plumbers and electricians? You get my drift.

Everyone wants the things they buy to be less expensive. Clients are no different. They can cut their legal bills at any time. But as long as they demand to be served by top talent, that is expected to respond to blackberry/phone/email at all hours of the day and night, that is expected to work 24-7 until their merger agreement is signed or their stock offering closes, that is expected to give up vacations for their matters, then they can fork it over.

140, it's not about the hours. It's about the demoralization and the sheer misery that law firms inflict on virtually every lawyer who works at one. You know how people who put their lives on the line get hazard pay? Working for a law firm you are putting your mental well-being (and more) on the line.

Ever stop to think there might be a reason some of the highest rates of alcoholism, depression, and suicide are among lawyers?

Foreign "lawyers" (ha!) are the most annoying people at networking events

And I don't understand how the NY State Bar Association allows 20-21 year old kids come to US, do one year of law school and take the bar. Everyone knows that most of these people have no prior legal experience

142 got it right.

129/140 - What did you score on the LSAT? Just curious to see how what score someone can get without studying and what score will get you into any law school.

Attention All Male European-LLM-Associates:

Stop wearing tight pants. No one wants to see the outline of your penis.

Thank you,
American-JD-Associate

129,

There is no way you got a job at Orrick. None. Sorry. You are a db.

129, that was a masterful troll. You almost had me until here:

"I know now that when I show up at Orrick, I merely need to keep my head down and put my hard work and hours in for a few years. After that, the firm will find a place for me. "

Orrick will cut people even quicker than before now, and if you're not partnership track they won't even count you in the "associate layoffs" count.

147,

Oh I beg to differ. It certainly beats staring at the greasy, prematurely-balding heads of a frightening percentage of my (former) male classmates.

- straight female lawyer

Dear god, listen to yourself,

"Yes, clients pay for lawyer training. But this is just like the rest of the business world. The cost of our training is built into the cost of the services we provide later in life when we are more valuable."

"Everyone wants the things they buy to be less expensive. Clients are no different. They can cut their legal bills at any time. But as long as ... [they want top-tier service], then they can fork it over."

Unless a law firm, through manipulation of its payment schedule, like Orrick, manages to offer lower-cost services, right? Then clients can go to Orrick and pay less money, right?

Nobody is bitching about how money much young lawyers make. We're complaining when those same young lawyers turn around to bitch about changes in the legal marketplace. THEY'RE the ones who are instigating the complaining.

Gotta hand it to King Ralph -- O continues to be among a few firms committed to innovating in the field of management jargon. Scott Adams must be the only person they haven't laid off yet.

144 & 147 are presumably bitter JD students who because of their sense of entitlement got fired, oops, I mean "was asked to explore other opportunities", as a result of not being able to compete with hardworking foreign attorneys in their respective firms. Just saying.

129. I respect your opinion and I hope it works out for you just the way you said. But I fear what you (and 95% of law students) don't understand is what "put my hard work and hours in for a few years" even means.

You've heard people throw around 2,000, 2,500, even 3,000 billable hours, but right now, those are just numbers on a page. Sure, it sounds like hard work, but those numbers have no physical meaning to your actual life. You can't measure the work in terms of gray hairs or bottles of blood pressure medication or number of wives.

And I'm sure you've worked hard to get to where you are. And I'm sure you think that "working hard" is a good thing, maybe even a noble thing, and certainly a necessary thing if you ever intend to raise yourself out of relative poverty. But so does everybody else. I can't think of one single person that I know that showed up at one of these firms expecting *not* to work hard. Most Biglaw associates are willing to "work hard" by any objective definition of the phrase.

But talk to anybody as they are moving into their 100th hour in a calendar week and then tell them they haven't worked hard enough. Talk to anybody 18 hours into the day when they add up their time (honestly) and find they've only really billed 12 hours of it because too much of the day was spent *waiting* for a partner to just sign off on the changes you know you need to make. Or talk to a person that has billed hundreds of hours on a deal, but has no sense of accomplishment or payoff because the deal falls through.

And then talk to those people after all that has happened to them multiple times, for years ... and then tell them that their time isn't actually worth very much to the firm or the clients and they can expect their salary to be cut effective immediately.

It isn't money grubbing if you've earned it.
--Elie

This would never happen at WILDMAN HARROLD.

and how many will be working this whoooole long weekend in the office and thinking at least it's peaceful work on holiday weekends when every sane person is home with their families, and maybe, you know, maybe you can leave at 4 on the 4th anyway,
as long as you hit it hard on the 5th.

156 got it right imho...why don't more dissatisfied BigLaw folks consider the fed govt. I know the money can't compare but holy smokes, would not some of you give up dollars for time. And the time is especially valuable because you rarely have to think about work when you aren't at work. I work 40 hours a week, never a weekend; usually two days/wk from home. I run my own investigations with excellent management support [not second guessing] and it is a complete pleasure. The benefits are exceptional and what I value most is not having the constant concern about whether I should be working. Still, I concede that I make much less money - I'm five yrs out and earn a base of $145k...for me, that is plenty but I know many who will never deign to stoop that low. Best of luck to all.

What a joke! Orrick should actually start making vacuums at this point. They suck so much they may as well at least go into a business where sucking is the actual production goal.

If they want to cut costs they should cut some of the fat back they're carrying in the form of non-productive partners. Start with any partner who has yet to develop a single client of their own. Just a million dollar idea Ralph might wanna run with....

Orrick DC seriously sucks my fatty.

143: Why are you a lawyer? You must work at a pretty rotten firm to believe so strongly that all firms destroy all lawyers. Not so. Perhaps I'm the only one foolish enough to post, but I'm a partner at a large firm, where I started my career almost 19 years ago. I absolutely love what I do, the people I work with. My firm did not "destroy me". Indeed, they repeatedly supported me--even paid for me to go back to school, so I could get an advanced degree, and switch practice groups. If you are unhappy, they either find something else to do, or find another firm. You only live once, why allow yourself to suffer?

I was an associate once as well, obviously, and I know and I saw the sense of entitlement that comes with the territory. Years I ago I billed 2400 hours, working on a huge litigation. I expected, indeed believed, that I was entitled to a BIG bonus, knowing the corporate associate got huge bonuses (20k, was huge back then) the year before for those hours. I got $7500. I was crest fallen. I did not realize that I billed 2400 hours in a year when lots of others billed 2600 to 2800. Then a non-lawyer friend of mine point out that if all I was doing was working for the bonus--and I was--then I was working for all the wrong reasons. I had thinking like an employee--needed to start thinking like an owner, because that's what partners are. From there on, my attitude changed. I was deferred twice before making partner, but it really didn't matter. Why? Because you spend many many more years being a partner than you do being an associate. Making partner in 8 years rather than 6 wasn't that big of a deal. Now after 11 years as partner, I'm the top earning partner in my group with a sizeable book of business. Do other partners make more in other groups make more? Sure they do. So what. Like 129 says, I'm making more money than I could have ever imagined. (And I'm not making 1M+). I'm good.

Regarding lockstep: What are you all so afraid of? That like most other businesses, you'll get paid what you are worth? Guess what? That's how partners are paid. My draw is based is based on what I'm worth in the marketplace. If that's how partners are compensated, why shouldn't associates be compensated the same way? Sure lockstep worked for years--things change. Get used to it. If you make partner, you'll soon learn that you take NOTHING for granted. Look how many law firm have imploded. So get used to change.

142 questioned why it is it assumed that 1st and 2nd years don't add value. They do, just not a lot. Based on your comment, I'm assuming that you're not a partner, and so have little or no directed exposure to what the financials actually look like. After you factor in compensation, overhead, and writeoffs, a lot of firms LOSE MONEY on first and second years. You have no idea how many times I've had to write off 15-20k on a project that should have cost only 15k. When a firm does this, it is making an investment in the person, on the hope that they will continue to develop their skills over time.

By the end of the second year, we expect more efficiency and skill. But not everyone matures at the same rate. For the person who is not developing as quickly, the problems start compounding under lockstep: their pay is going up, their billing rate is going up, but they are doing no better than a first year (or whatever year they are "stuck" at). Either you hold them back, in which case you've given them a stigma, or you fire them.

And that's what none of you seem to understand about the three tier model. With a lockstep model, there's a very rigid and narrow range of efficiency that is acceptable for the associates, based on the fixed comp, number of hours, and billing rate. As an associate you either make the grade (2000 hours) or you don't. The threshold for "adding value" is very high, and its narrowly defined by hours.

With a 3 tier model, a firm has a lot more flexibility to keep folks who add different degrees (or types) of value, and in particular can keep folks who would NOT be retained and mentored under the lockstep model. If we can adjust an associate's salary to match their skills and efficiency, then we can keep those who are "good people"--dedicated, team players, fun to be around--but who happen to not be the most efficient or hardest working. To me, such people add value, and I'm happy to keep them and mentor them. Not everyone wants to bill 2000 hours. As a partner, I much rather work with associates who enjoy what they do at the level they do it, then folks who are working themselves to death and hating every minute of it--like 143.

I'm sure that many of you will think I'm either delusional or naive or simply lying. What's new? That's how much people view me. But I'm a happy lawyer. Let the flames begin.

Thank you for sharing your experience 160. Would you telling me a little bit about your switch of practice groups and what you went back to school to study? More science for patent bar?

160,

"If you are unhappy, they either find something else to do"

"knowing the corporate associate got huge bonuses"

"then a non-lawyer friend of mine point out that if all I was doing was working for the bonus"

"Do other partners make more in other groups make more?"

"That's how partners are paid. My draw is based is based on what I'm worth in the marketplace. "

" Look how many law firm have imploded. "

"As a partner, I much rather work with associates who enjoy what they "

In the event you're a lawyer at a big firm, partner or not, you're the dumbest fucking lawyer that's ever posted here. No wonder you're a happy lawyer, you're dumb as shit and still made partner.

I don't believe it for a second, the lack of specifics of being a partner leads me to believe you're a dumbass law student at about the University of Miami level.

"I would be content to make $160k plus the occasional bonus, adjusted for inflation, for the next 20 years. Orrick’s new talent model will let me do that, all the while allowing me to take a shot and see if I am biglaw partner material. I have no idea what’s not to like here."

Sweet God you are naive. A lot of people would be content to make $160K for 20 years (inflation adjusted or not)...newsflash, if the work isn't there, it isn't there, and partner track associate or not, they can and will get rid of you.

Former Thelen and current Orrick partner The Glass Cock here, wondering whether 129 is one of our HR folks. The Glass Cock is too busy (and frankly, too evolved) to deal with things like counter-intel campaigns against blog comments, but The Glass Cock has to wonder how any incoming first year could make this statement:

"All of these laid-off attorneys were wonderful people and remarkably capable attorneys. They just weren’t partner material (although one of them clearly thought he was)."

Is The Glass Cock to believe that after a summer at Orrick, this incoming first year got to know so much about senior associates (all of them, apparently) that he could make a determination as to partnership potential? Not that a first year wouldn't be arrogant enough to THINK he knew what partnership material is, but it would be tough to believe that anyone would actually write such a thing on a public forum.

The Glass Cock can assure all of your income first years, you have no idea what partnership material looks like. To some firms it's a book of business, to other firms it's being a team player and sacrificing everything for the sake of the partnership, to other firms it's just the luck of the draw. That is, there is no set formula.

In The Glass Cock's experience, however, any time a firm's management committee wants to knock off some senior associates and there's no other reason to do so, we come up with the "they are not partner material" excuse. It works so well because it's so vague.

So I conclude that 129 is Orrick HR.

Anybody who doesn't want foreign lawyers in the US is basically saying they don't want law firms to employ the best and the brightest.

News f*ckin flash xenophobes... the good old USA is not the only country in the world to produce talented, smart, common law lawyers.

Survival of the fittest b*tches! If you have to blame foreign attorneys, you are not FIT!

Foreign attorneys account for about 20% of associates in Biglaw. We are indispensable to you and our numbers are growing.

160, well good for you. You want to know why I say biglaw destroyed me? I'll tell you.

Years of being asked, last-minute, to rush projects I had been asking to start for months. The partner I worked for was a piss-poor manager with an ego the size of Texas. He got a sick thrill out of being able to make people race like hamsters on a wheel, just because he told them to.

Years of being expected to sacrifice my personal life, not just occasionally, but every fucking time he had so much as a whim that I be in the office. I was not given so much as a polite "thanks" by this individual one single time in the four years I sacrificed and hauled ass for his firm, all to help him rake in his millions while I struggled to balance my student loan payments with a modest but prudent nest egg.

Years of being passed over for quality work, in spite of the tireless and thankless hours I put in, time after time, with positively glowing reviews and hearing from others that the partner I worked for raved about the quality of my work. Why didn't I get good cases and more responsibility? Because I refused to kiss the partner's ass, and associates junior to me (whose work was uniformly acknowledged to be low quality) consistently got the plum assignments this partner knew I wanted. It was his way of keeping me in my place.

Oh, but that's just one partner, right? There are always outliers, right?

Not when that partner is a rainmaker. Not when the administration turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to my requests for assignments to different partners, different offices, anything to get away from the hellish situation I was in. My experience at biglaw taught me that people are not valued; dollar signs are. Of course, that's all of corporate America. I don't posit that this makes biglaw an outlier by any stretch. But it certainly justifies my cynicism. Your experience was that you worked hard, you did a good job, and you were rewarded. Well, GOOD FOR YOU. That was not my experience. I worked hard, I did a good job, I even had a good fucking attitude when expected to come in and work 12-hour days over a HOLIDAY WEEKEND (on a non-emergency assignment) -- I fucking brought cookies to the office. What was my reward for my tireless work, my superior work product, and my pleasant attitude? A pink slip the instant the economy turned south and my hours started to slip.

Yes, I acknowledge that I am NOW a supremely bitter and unpleasant person, and that with my attitude NOW I certainly shouldn't expect to get far. I get it, and I'm in therapy to work on it. But guess who fucking made me this way?

So don't tell me not to think badly of biglaw. Biglaw destroyed my life, and all I have to show for it is a big screen TV, a few thousand in the bank, and a therapist whose child I'm helping put through college. I love that TV, but I promise it wasn't worth it.

165 and 166:

You are delusional if you think that Biglaw hiring and retention is pure meritocracy. You are particularly delusional if you think there is more than a marginal difference between the associate who is hired and the one who was next in line.

Let's be honest, there are VERY few firms like Orrick that have the global resources, superior strength, practice diversity, and reputation for excellence and innovation that allows clients to accomplish very complex cross-border legal issues.

Even PE would have to agree with this one. Orrick ain't your momma's vaccuum cleaner.

Let's be honest, there are VERY few firms like Orrick that have the global resources, superior strength, practice diversity, and reputation for excellence and innovation that allows clients to accomplish very complex cross-border legal issues.

Even PE would have to agree with this one. Orrick ain't your momma's vaccuum cleaner.

169/170 is either brilliant parody or an Orrick HR/partner troll.

167, I feel your pain. I hope things improve for you.

Yes, 167. I am clerking now (thank God) and managed to avoid my own firm's blood bath. The job pays so damn much because it's fucking horrible. Really.

I hope you're doing better. And believe me, you're not alone. I went to Stanford and have a ton of friends in your boat, trying to make sense of being smart, working hard, and being fucked by partners who can barely keep a hold on things.

Good luck on getting back to okay. You'll make it. Trust.

Everyone knows that Orrick took a beating bringing in so many displaced lawyers from Heller, especially in Seattle. The firm is wacking associate salaries so that partners can continue to make millions while others suffer. Especially in SeaTTTle.

167: Sorry to hear of your problems. I won't bother to say you shouldn't vent because I think you rightly should. Things are hard now, but these things pass and I'm hopeful they'll become better in the near future for you!

167, you brought on that treatment. You brought cookies to the office when you had to come in over a holiday weekend? This is a tough industry that that smacks of pussy-tude. Partners absolutely will make life miserable for associates who show that they will take it without standing up. I was an associate at a large NY firm for close to 7 years (I left for another firm in another city and have been there since) and if I knew that a partner was trying to ruin a weekend for no reason (I agree that it does happen) I would call his or her bluff and tell the partner I couldn't do it.

If you're so worried about whether it will hurt your partnership chances then you should really think about whether partnership is what you want, cause partnership means you put your life second to the firm's needs. If you don't want to be a partner then you won't care whether reclaiming a bit of your life will hurt your future, since the firm is not your future.

that first paragraph was obviously written by some mckisney loser 28 y/o Darden MBA. Bunch of business school gibberish BS. orrick probably spent $1mm for mckinsey to write up 60 slides of junk . good going, ralph!

129 -

Why, exactly, do you think this ends "up or out?" Do you think that Orrick is going to create an unlimited cadre of off-track associates? And do you think that you can just park there sucking at the firm's teat for as long as you care to? Do you think there's unlimited work for off-track associates? And, if there is, do you think the firm is going to pay you x dollars a year in whatever market you're in when they could pay an attorney in West Virginia x/2 (or x/3) dollars a year to do the same job - and be well-paid given the COL in Almost Heaven?

Good luck with that.

Even if it works out for you, when hard times come, your ass is the first on the street. You've already demonstrated that you're not "star material." Bye. If there's limited work to parcel out, it isn't going to you. Ask the staff attorneys and of counsel at any number of large firms what the last six months have been like.

Then what? How easy do you think it's going to be to get another job when the last five years on your resume has been doc review and things-like-doc-review? Do you think firms will be falling over themselves to get you? Or do you think it's going to be time to apply for an Indian work visa so you can continue your career in Calcutta?

Look, I believe you when you say you're an incoming first year. Sure, Why not. But I have a hard time believing you're not a 25-year old kid. You write that you have work experience and did oh-so-well on the LSAT but yet you don't seem to be able to take your alleged corporate experience, read between the lines, and use whatever analytic ability you think you have to draw obvious conclusions.

I hope I'm wrong, But it's almost certain that 58 nailed it. Re-read 58. Consider that he or she has more experience than you. And for God's sake, if you're going to drink all afternoon, booze it up and lay off the green Kool Aid.

I think that one of the reasons that so many lawyers have an aversion to leaving lockstep is because they do not trust that what will result really will be a meritocracy. Too many of us see people be rewarded for kissing up or playing politics above hard work. The best projects may go to the guys that play on a rainmaker's soccer team or went to the same school. Also, there is a lot of luck involved -- what partners you end up working for most makes a huge difference (sometimes you can exercise some control over this -- but usually not a lot). Sometimes you are just plain unlucky to end up in a practice group that isn't doing well, while your collegues (who may be less willing to work hard) are in group where circumstances are working out much better. If your impression already is that bonuses or other perks are doled out in inconsistent ways, you are not going to have much confidence that non-lockstep pay will work out any differently.

176 - but what if you need a job??

180, 176 here. Look at what being a wimp got 167. I'm just saying that you shouldn't roll over and take whatever a partner is doing to you if you feel that it is not necessary.

Ralph Baxter sounds like a used car salesman. As I recall, Orrick claimed to have paid above half skadden bonuses in early 2009. Every move since then has been TTT which suggests they might not exactly be market leaders when it comes to setting associate comp.

181: wimp, huh? Because I brought cookies to the office one weekend (mostly because it was going to be so hellish working on the holiday that I thought some of my girlfriend's delicious baking might cheer up some of my coworkers, thus making everyone's life a little bit easier)?

You know, if doing something nice to make an ugly situation more bearable makes me a "wimp," then I'm happy to be a wimp in your world.

For the record, my coworkers loved the cookies. Even the asshole partner said he liked them. Didn't thank me, but he liked them.

Also, I'm on the west coast. We're less uptight out here.

Gee, 183/167, you got gold stars for being a good housewife but bupkus for being an attorney. You don't get what law firms are about. They're not about making cookies, they're about making billable hours, as many of them as possible. Neither cookies nor being a good guy matter.

And by the way, it's a total myth that the west coast is less uptight. Less professional, yes, but just as uptight as anywhere else.

This is actually intelligent. Go Orrick!
now tell the f-ing crooks who run the law schools to cut tuition

But what does this mean for incoming first years?

Ralph should have to go on the Custom Track and take a pay cut and fire his soda-opener. He sucks. So do all of you commenters. Get aids and die.

Ralph should have to go on the Custom Track and take a pay cut and fire his soda-opener. He sucks. So do all of you commenters. Get aids and die.

184 -- former east-coaster who's resettled in CA now. You keep telling yourself it sucks just as bad out here... lol... and please keep passing your "myth-busting" along. I'd prefer to keep the uptight dickwads on the east coast where I left 'em.

182- Yes, Orrick paid bonuses on what turned out to be the full Skadden scale. That is because Orrick announces its bonus program at the beginning of the year. At the beginning of 2008, the market scale was what turned out to be "full Skadden" at the end of 2008. Orrick stuck with its announced bonus scale. So "big billers" (i.e., people who broke 2000 or 2100) got full Skadden bonuses.
Yes, Orrick had layoffs. It also had (and has) one of the largest Structured Finance groups in the country. Presumably, like with Cadwalader, that has turned out to be a very expensive thing to have during the current recession. The layoffs would have been very difficult to avoid after Structured Finance dried up for what has been now close to two years (for those late to the party, Structure Finance deals stopped at the end of Summer 2007. Orrick's layoffs were in the beginning of 2009.)

189's got it.

I'd way rather work out here (West) for slightly less cash than at those v10 sweatshops you all gloat about working for so you can feel better about your shitty lives. I did my 2L summer at a top NY firm (got offer) and came back to the SF firm where I spent my 1L summer.

oh and 150, just because we are balding prematurely doesn't change the fact that not even the Euro-trash you swoon over won't touch your STD-riddled body.

- Proudly balding SF Associate

176/184--Screw you, you are full of shit. There are some people you can stick up to, and they will either respect you or put up with it. There are some other people who will hit you back twice as hard any time you try to carve out some little bit of space for yourself. Clearly, you've only dealt with the first. 167 has dealt with the second (at least) and I've dealt with both and have the good sense to know the difference.

167, I feel for you, I really do. Best of luck going forward, don't let the jackasses get you down.

129, You are deluded. If all you want to do is make 160, go full time at a big firm, and then switch over to a small or midsize after a while. You will get up to over $160, and you'll spend less time at the office, and you can make up for making less to start with by saving while at biglaw. Or go in-house or something. You do not want to do the same job for 20 years. Trust me. The most bitter creatures I've ever sat across the table from are "Of Counsel" at firms where it doesn't mean you're going to get promoted. And they make well over $160. They just get tired of being someone else's bitch, and watching associates become partners and outrank them even though they've been there more than twice as long and have more knowledge and experience. Not a pretty damn sight.

160, Glad partner-land is working out for you so well, that's fab. But the reason we don't want to move away from lockstep is, we're going to get screwed. Now, you want to change it so that associates get some percentage of their receivables as salary, fine. But anything else is just a transparent attempt for partners who are billing a shit ton for our time and taking home the lion's share of it to get more money. And usually, in my experience (as a mid-level who came in mid after clerking) the problem isn't that associates take forever, it is that some partners forget how long tasks take. If first years were so worthless, federal judges wouldn't be scooping them up as clerks. Having an up-to-the minute academic background in a subject, few preconceived notions, and an up-to-date knowledge of legal research makes first years very useful, when someone knows how to use them. If "first years" can try misdemeanors and hang out shingles, they darn well can be useful in biglaw if managed properly. Note that even the federal judges who want people with "biglaw experience" only want a year or two. Wonder why most of the partners I know did either a stint in government or in small or midlaw before making partner. It is because those are the places where they got to build actual skills.

see, now this is at least a relevant post to BigLaw attorneys...not whether NYU is NYLS.

143: I agree we should get hazard pay. BigLaw sucked the life out of me. What's scary is that there are tons of partners and koolaid drinking dumbasses who still believe BigLaw cares for them and supports them and sends them back to school and combs their hair and goes clothes shopping with them. It's the Stockholm syndrome. I'm sure there are some people who are truly happy in BigLaw, but that's few and far between. Most of them don't know what else to do with themselves or how to live another way to be truly happy. It's like the Matrix. These people would rather go back into the Matrix than face life and actually work at something meaningful that makes them happy.

just be glad you're out. leave them there to chase their own tail.

Hey 162

Bet you thought I went away with my tail between my legs? Hardly. I went to dinner.

I'm the dumbest fucking lawyer who's ever posted? Why thank you, I'll take that as badge of honor.

Yes, you're right I'm a the dumbest fuck for thinking that this was a discussion on the merits--none of which you've addressed.

Reminds me of when Lady Astor told WC Fields he was drunk. "Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly."

In 10 or 20 years, I'll still be happy, successful partner, and you my friend will be a bitter old copy editor.

Or you'll be a partner at a soul sucking, demoralizing law firm, taking out your petty frustrations on anyone who does not meet your definition of perfection. You'll wonder why you hate your life, why your wife divorced you, and why your secretary would spit in your coffee if you ask her to get it, when you're obviously the smartest guy in the room, don't they see that?. Then you tell me who is the dumbest fuck.

change is always met with resistance. but the truth is that people who complain most about moving to a more merits system will be the low performers. probably explains why so many people on this site are complaining

i like cheese

I see a lot of lawsuits coming.
Unless they rigorously apply hour standards and equal access to those hours,
lots of confusion and settlements as they show people out the door.
That's why lockstep, while not ideal, worked.

190 wrote:

"The layoffs would have been very difficult to avoid after Structured Finance dried up for what has been now close to two years (for those late to the party, Structure Finance deals stopped at the end of Summer 2007. Orrick's layoffs were in the beginning of 2009.)"

Dude, unwedge your head. They first laid off at the end of 2008 claiming to have made "deep" cuts to avoid further layoffs. After just a few months of partner failure to bring in work they laid off again in far greater numbers then the original "deep" cut. And it was FAR from just structured finance that got hit. They can't manage themselves out of a wet paper bag.

They looked incompetent and unprofessional and their rep took a huge hit, esp at top tier schools and in foreign markets where their peer (and better) firm offices continued (and continue) to have work and no layoffs despite operating in the same economy.

No decent student or lateral is going to seriously consider them now. Safety pick, maybe, but you can do better. First or even top 5 pick, no way. Why associate yourself with top-down failure if you have a choice?

197--law firms have an excellent defense--we're horrible to everyone not just women or minorities.

I really hope this is the outlier in three years.

1-200 = major fail

"Laura Saklad, Orrick's Chief Lawyer Development Officer"

"Siobhan Handley, Orrick's Managing Partner for Innovation"

And Baxter is basically just a CEO.

doesn't it seem that Orrick has alot of expensive "management"? what happened to the partners running the firm and focusing on brining in business?

the end of lockstep kills the senior associates who had put their time in the lockstep model and are 2-3 years away from partnership. i wonder if Orrick will see senior associate defections.

167-- do this: drink more, until it almost kills you, until you lose everything in your life that you think matters. then, get in the program, figure out what matters in life, and be reborn. flame away, but this 129 kid has his priorities straight. Do you have to almost die to figure this shit out? I did.

Somebody remind me, who was it who first raised associate salaries to 160K. Was it . . . Ralph Baxter? Oh yeah, back when Orrick was flush, he was happy to use associate salaries as a weapon to beat his competitors over the head. Didn't seem to care much about clients then . . . and the inflation he spawned in associate salaries undoubtedly contributed to many more layoffs when the bad times hit. Now he is the white knight coming to the aid of his clients and all those poor associates who don't want to be a partner and instead desperately want to be "career attorneys" reviewing documents. What an altruistic soul! And gosh . . . kudos to the press for pointing out the hypocrisy of his about face. Here's a tip for BigLaw Media -- go back and read your own fawning stories about Ralph's statements when he led the charge to $160K and compare them to his comments yesterday. Then connect the dots . . . it's called "journalism."

167:
160 here. I hear your pain and understand it. It's clear to me that you're a stand up guy, and you expected to be treated with respect. No question, you got screwed. I wish you the best.

Indeed, I worked under such a partner in my first year on a tax litigation. Luckily, that kind of attitude by partners--and general incompetence--was not tolerated in my firm, and the partner was essentially forced out.

What you describe is also a consequence of the assignment system. Get assigned to an asshole and yes, your life sucks (try not to think of that image). I work in a firm with a free market system. We have internal partners reviews where associates review partners, and if you are an asshole you get reamed. And folks generally won't do your work, even if you are a rainmaker. You've probably figured out that we're a West coast firm.

I would venture that biglaw partners have a tendency to be abusive and destructive precisely because they were abused as associates. It's like child molesters. They are like that because they "grew up" in an abusive system. It is what they know. And more importantly, it was what they were showed was necessary to survive and be accepted.

I'm not indicting all biglaw firms or all such partners of course. I'm sure there are decent people in every firm. The problem is you can't find those firms and specifically those people by looking at NALP forms, and other garbage that is published about law firms. You can only know what a firm is like from the inside. And once you are in--being a risk averse attorney--it's very hard to leave.

Back to lock step:

192 says "But the reason we don't want to move away from lockstep is, we're going to get screwed. Now, you want to change it so that associates get some percentage of their receivables as salary, fine. But anything else is just a transparent attempt for partners who are billing a shit ton for our time and taking home the lion's share of it to get more money."

Trust me, you don't want a percentage of receivables.
--do you want your paycheck to vary by 15 perhaps 20% a month? How about 50%? How about 100%?
--do you want your paycheck to depend on whether the client paid, when you as an associate have no influence over that? As a partner, I'm responsible to collect the bills. I negotiate what the client will pay. Do you want your pay dependent on whether I'm good at getting clients to pay? What if to collect on a 100k AR, I agree to write off 25k? I don't ask you, "Hey, do you mind if I cut your pay this month by 25%?"
--do you want your paycheck dependent on what projects you get assigned to, so that you work on what "pays" rather than on what you want to do? Is that why you decided to be a lawyer? Not me.

Re getting screwed: Yeah, I'm sure that some firms will screw some associates. No doubt. And I'm sure that ending lockstep will be good for some associates as well. It will allow the less than stellar to keep their jobs longer.

Someone said that you can't expect to nurse at the teat of the firm forever. Actually, that's not true. What you don't understand is that senior attorneys are very profitable...and very hard to replace. The disruption to the clients, the loss of expertise in a particular area, etc. are very costly. Lose a senior attorney and you risk losing a client. If a senior attorney wants to park at a nice salary, say 350k, and the firm is making money, then that's totally fine and the firm will keep that attorney.

Partnership is not for everyone. Not everyone wants to suffer the lifestyle or the demands. And not everyone has the ability to be a lawyer AND a manager, mentor, and business generator, etc. every day, all day. Having a structure and comp in place for a variety of different abilities is much better than the single lockstep, up or out model.

Finally, even if you are cynical, and you think partners are just greedy assholes, fine. If you think ending lockstep is better for partners, then remember that you'll be partner many many more years than you will be an associate. So you may get 'screwed' for what 5 maybe 10 years? But if you make partner then you'll be swimming in gravy for 40 years. So in the long run, ending lockstep is good for you.

"What if I never make partner?": Sure not even the best and brightest will make it at the most profitable firms. But if you're really a good lawyer, can generate business, and keep clients, then you've got market value, and you will find a home. But if all you can do is work like a dog (even a really smart dog with exceptional legal skills) and not complain, don't expect to make partner at my firm or any other. That's not what being a partner is about. If this is your profile, then ending lockstep is good for you too. You'll get compensated what you are "worth"--and as I said above, you'll keep your job for years. You'll get about 1/3 of your billing rate. Why not more? Because my capitalist friend you don't bear *any* risk. Partners do. You don't pay overhead. Partners do. You don't have any liability. Partners do. You don't have to bring in clients. Partners do. You don't have to actually "run the business," partners do.

Stop thinking like an employee and start thinking like an owner.

Kudos Elie (154), you're exactly right. As a person who billed 2,000+ for several years only to have a partner say "If I remember correctly, you've billed between 2,000 and 2,100 hours for the past few years. So...you really haven't been working very hard.", I also think 129 is in for a rude awakening, whether he's held "9 to 5" jobs for an aggregate of 7 years as he claims, or not.

Also, the idea that this modification gives any Orrick associates job security is madness. My firm modified its system recently to "allow people to progress at their own rate" and then promptly showed a batch of people to the door.

VE VANT ZE MOOOOONNNEEEYYY LEBOWSKI!!!!!!

"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." - George Costanza

Mr. Baxter may believe that this new Talent Model is good for associates but that doesn't make it true. Associates will get lower average compensation and nothing else - no additional job security, no more interesting assignments, no partners that care more about associate development.

160/206,

192 here. You're really missing my point, so let me make it clearer. Leaving aside the rule of three bullshit, the point of this whole "ending lockstep" business is that supposedly, some associates are getting more than they are worth, others are getting less, and clients are bitching about paying too much. See comments of GCs other decisionmakers upthread about how it isn't associate billing rates that are the problem. My point is, if they are going to tie compensation to actual value added (associates as profit centers) it should be utterly transparent and associates should get a cut.

I actually do not think that is a good idea, I was merely stating that if the partners' concerns were valid, this would be a more appropriate response. And there are ways to handle all the fluctuation business, i.e., underpay and give the rest as a bonusss.

Lockstep is good because it prevents a lot of the discrimination issues we're worried about in biglaw, and because the stellar performers are already rewarded with bonuses. In short, lockstep is the salary floor that the market will bear, bonuses are where differences are sorted out. This is a good system because it is transparent, and we don't have to worry about women/minorities/unassertive lawyers/lawyers who work for assholes being stressed out because they are screwed.

This new plan is moving the floor.

And spare me the "think like an owner" bullshit. You went to great pains to tell everyone why you think 167's asshole supervisor was an asshole because he was brought up in an asshole firm environment. I will not contribute to that kind of environment, with regard to compensation, as either an associate or partner. Just because I may be a partner some day doesn't mean I am okay with (1) getting screwed now (2) screwing others then. If the standard is that associates are paid about 1/3, and some partners are too dumb to properly manage associates so their time gets written off, the problem is with the owners. (Hey, guess who's time doesn't get written off because she's lucky enough to work for partners with a grip on reality AND she isn't made to do first-year research assignments which are broad and take a long effing time? Raises hand.) Leverage has gone way, way, up. Some of your older colleagues billed something like 1400-1800 back in the day, and because they didn't have computers, that is also a lot less work done in those 1400-1800 hours. Now we're wrangling tens of thousands of documents, revising orders in 0.5 that others would have had to write out painstakingly in 2.5, and it is mentally freaking exhausting. The $160,000 scale, which is really damn helpful for paying off those loans, makes it worth it to me to cudgel my brains for now. Take that away, and keep edging up hours, and I'll go somewhere that still pays what used to be market. Or the lower salaries at mid-law and small-law and the promise of an eventual $500,000 per year partnership pulling around 40 a week will win me over. Trust me, anyone with sense and cajones will "think like an owner" and say fuck all of this making $300 large to work like crazy for partners less experienced than I am, I'm going Mayberry.

Foreigners are stinky and retarded. But they're hungry because they come from shitty third world countries. Fuck all of them and they should go home to their crap countries. Fuck Ralph Baxter

206 is right. Start thinking like an owner. An owner of your own life. If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't lay there like an ass lobster and take it.

78 - You are describing the life of a government lawyer. For some reason, however, nearly 90% of all law grads suddenly realized, this year, that this is the life they want. They're getting thousands of applications per opening. It's not a good year.

Also, if you are a Republican, do not attempt to move to DC right now unless you already have madly connected friends AND plan to live in Virginia. Otherwise you're just going to be another underemployed asshole constantly complaining about everything in the city.

"Believe it or not, the people who go to the top law schools would own 95% of the rest of the world in just about ANY job, regardless of what they majored in during college. "

Thank you for that. I read it five times, and giggled every time.

I really think it works the other way: 95% of the top law school students would be completely unemployable in almost any other profession - except maybe engineering, which requires math skills that most lawyers don't have.

This just means that women and minorities will finally be able sue for the rampant discrimination that goes on in law firms. With lockstep compensation, it was hard to prove discrimination...they were compensated on an equal basis. Now, women and minorities will be undercompensated and will sue and win.

Finally justice.

wow. I'm not going to call anyone out but I'm amazed at the people who claim they are "partners" but sound like the kind of guy that would roll shitty weed in a blunt with a cigar wrapper and claim they had class.

really? you really need to step back and look at what you write because it's pretty disgraceful and I chagrin at the idea that you really are a partner and poor associates have to work under you.

Also, I really wouldn't try to predict whether you'll be successful in 10-20 years. I doubt the partners who were outed or de-equitized during this economic downturn would not have thought so even 5 years ago.

Remember, pride precedes the fall.

Who cares. Orrick doesn't set the compensation level; the market does. When the market picks up, Orrick, or any other law firm, has to unfreeze salary to keep and attract talent. If the market stays law, I'm just happy to have a job that pays. And thanks to the downturn, I'm actually having a life now.

ELIE: Why do you litter the article with such large excerpts from the official memo, and THEN post the ENTIRE MEMO? At least half of this article (and others like it) is entirely repetitive.

I would suggest writing a clear and concise SUMMARY of the subject matter (lose the blue-boxed block quotes completely and instead WRITE a short description). The block quotes are presented in the "full memo" taht usually accompanies these types of posts.

I know that it might be a bit of extra WORK for you, but SUMMARIZING the topics with ORIGINAL language before attaching the "Full Memo" makes for a MUCH better read and is FAR less repetitive.