I feel like maybe I should care about this. But I don't.

SkaTTTen - The ship be sinking...

Completely irrelevant and useless to 99.999% of us, but at least this is news that is actually "breaking" and up to date. Thanks for being on top of things.

Hogan isn't exactly high in the world of prestidge either.

Cue JE disparaging remark to salvage this worthless post.

This falls solidly on the "who gives a shit" page of the National Equirer. Bennett is a has been. He really wasn't the greatest trial attorney in the world, or even one of the best. He just happened to have all the connections that brought him great cases, along with excellent helpers to make him look good. This isn't news. This is nothing.

Skadden DC!

where's that commenter?

The apocalypse at Skadden DC has flown under the ATL radar for too long.

Remember, this is a legal tabloid (look at the top of the website just to verify). So most of this stuff won't be relevant - only inasmuch as other celebrity tabloids would be relevant to your life. This website never set itself out as a hard news source. Since when did LEW, summer associate fiascos, and the douchiest law schools ever become relevant to most of us?

#10-hey elie!

is it just me, or does Skadden seem to be bleeding partners lately?

SecDef? Seriously?? Pathetic. Or should I say, pathetique.

This has 100% to do with retirement age, I think.

12 - Bleeding them and then replacing them with better blood. So - meh - whatever.

Please spell Carl Rauh correctly.

I'm enjoying and will continue to enjoy the fear and denial of the pro-Skadden posters in this thread...

Bob Bennett has come to Road's End.

I realize a lot of you don't know much about Skadden, so you read the title, and you leave a post dismissing the article and congratulating your own ignorance of the industry.

But consider this you smart-asses- over the past 6 months, Skadden's DC office has lost half its lit department to Buckley Sandler, it's IP department to Paul Hastings, and now it's remaining two litigators go to H&H. And Bob Bennett is a big swinging dick. That is the #2 office for one of the most powerful firms in the world that is crumbling before you.

The ship be sinking!

i don't know bob bennett or ever worked with him in any way. I know for a fact however that he has tried a lot of high profile cases and won many of them, whereas most of you blowhards on this blog probably havent seen the inside of a courtroom since that law school field trip. so grow up.

Really? You people don't care about one of the most influential litigators in the country? Go back to reading your 1L property books.

-Not Skadden or H&H

Whoaaaa 21. You p3wned'em all!!! BAM!!!!

a date which will live in infamy

Suggestion: Create two ATL sites. One for the big boys and another - Junior ATL - for small firms in small cities. Hate to sound like a snob, but I don't come to this site for stories about some firm I've never heard of like this 'Skaden.' The new site could be called Below the Law or Below Above the Law.

With the $$$ he makes, you'd think he could dress himself better.

As to those kvetching about his skills/connections. Does it matter which is better - he still brings in the coin.

Per past practice, Skadden DC will throw a going-away party at which associates who attend will be stealthily laid off.

25 - what? you don't like purple ties with matching pocket hankies?

19, 20 & 21 = H&H associates.

Congratulations guys.

28,

I'gnant d-bag 1L at TTT.

No, congrats to you 28. Enjoy OCI with the local PI firms.

20.

"But Kash noticed as interesting connection. "

Dollars to doughnuts Ellie is behind this post. Seriously, how difficult is it to proofread before posting?

FAIL

The _late_ Cap Weinberger. A dead client isn't much of an asset to trade on.

Wow. Any explanation on why they would make that move?

This is crazy. Wonder if Greg Garre is next?

"Bennett" is one of the handful of trial attorney names that even transactional attorneys really ought to know. You don't get to keep your window office in BigLaw if the only thing you know about BigLaw is the color of your own carpet you ignorant d-bags.

33, I'm not sure why it's relevant. You could practice M&A for thirty years and not need to know a damn thing about trial attorneys or their shenanigans. I doubt Bennett can name many M&A attorneys he hasn't personally worked with.

27 - Especially not with the shirt he's wearing. I mean really, does he buy adult garanimals or what? What cute girl in Brooks Brothers told him he looked good that way (as she rang up the additional sales)?

Anybody want to bowl?

I DO NOT care about this guy...

SKADDEN IS FINISHED.

35, get real. With that man's money, said Brooks Bros. check-out girl would be serving up her loamy vittles to him with enthusiasm and asking if throwing her sister in the mix might be okay with him.

For those who gripe he ain't so hot, etc. Puh-leez. I am not a litigator, I don't practice in DC, and I generally don't give a rip about big names in law, since most of that is hype. But this guy is a legal superstar.

Bennett's clientele is getting priced out of Skadden's rates. Hogan will be a softer place for a swan song.

40 - complete bullshit

40,

you are kidding right. Clients that go to Bennett aren't worried about billing rates for Bennett and I doubt they are worried about the peons billing rate either on cases that clients go to Bennett for

The wind doth taste of bittersweet / Like jasper wine and sugar / It no longer blows through others' feet / like those of Caspar Weinberger

33- Joe Flom. Probably Marty Lipton. Maybe even Rodge Cohen.

He is not even the most famous person in his family.

Hogan, for the win!

Skadden and other peer firms can learn a lesson from these costly partner defections. You see, non-peer firms are adopting my hybrid tough love package (such as H&H), which is a committment to preserve or boost PPP at the expense of everything else in this dour economy. Peer firms are standing fast on adopting my hybrid tough love model and it is costing them (e.g., read any legal periodical these days to catch up on the latest musical chair moves). Peer firms need to embrace hybrid tough love and assure partnership ranks that we will do whatever is necessary (i.e., salary cuts and associate/staff layoffs) to keep the profit ship afloat. Peer firms need to realize that we will still retain prestige and be able to attract top talent regardless of whether we adopt hybrid tough love. The market is already saturated with lawyers with great credentials. This economic tsunami has created a buyer's market and we need to take advantage of that. Remember, we are not here to coddle snot nosed associates who have no practical skills out of law school. Peer firms, the time for adopting hybrid tough love is now.

19 is dead on. This makes Andy Sandler's departure seem more informed than it did at the time.

Good for SkaTTTen...of the over 30+ on-campus interviews I had in law school, the one with That Firm's DC office is the only one that I remember. Because the partner who interviewed me was a straight up pompous A$$. I hope their DC office disappears.

4 - Hogan might not rank high in ATL or Vault's prestige rankings, but it's where the Chief Justice used to do his work.

Bennett makes rain. It's going to be falling on H&H now.

49 did not get an offer from Skadden DC

50 -- yeah, cuz i'm sure Bennett won't appropriate 98% of that "rain" for himself! He's basically using H&H as office space for his own personal practice. It doesn't matter whether he's at Skadden, Hogan, or Cadwalader -- Bennett will keep almost all of the profit he generates.

He probably moved to Hogan b/c he was sick of having morons as associates assigned to his cases from Skattten DC. Also, there are probably fewer conflicts at Hogan.

Take a course in how law firms work.

HUGE!

Great job getting all those interviews, 49. Except that only a complete jackass would do 30+ on-campus interviews. Either you know you come off as a sociopath during interviews and therefore would be lucky to get 1 callback in 10, or you just wanted to fuck over your classmates who might have actually been interested in the 25+ firms you obviously didn't give a shit about.

Maybe the partner was only being a pompous ass because he knew how big of a douche you are.

Um, 52 - you've just described how all partnerships, legal, accounting, or any other services, operate.

Here's a biscuit, enjoy.

H&H has an eat-what-you-kill model that would probably benefit Bennett more than Skadden's equity partnership model.

Skadden keeps losing big name partners. Should we be worried?

43: you win this thread, although I believe line 3 is "I bet it's blown through others' feet."

Partner Emeritus - How do you do it? We did not expect to hear from you this early in the morning, since we heard you were out all night sucking on the toes of Rick (from Rick's cabaret). How do you stay out all night, party like a gay porn rock star, and sober up enough to come into the office? I want to party with you cowboy.

55 -- REALLY??? that's not how Cravath and DPW operate. The partners there are subjec to lockstep comp, and nobody "owns" the client. So I assure you that if Bennett lateraled to one of those firms, he would NOT be appropriating all that he brings in, or anything close to it.

So you know what you can do with that biscuit, chief.

24 - *yawn* - enough already you pompous uneducated dumbass

36 -

please don't besmirch the dude's good name. That was far from funny and far from even being dude-like.

what's the deal with all of these wannabe PEs anywya?

SkaTTTen

62- Obviously, you are not a golfer

AND I CARE WHY?......................

"Breaking"???

Breaking: I just took a dump.

This after the IP partners jumped ship... Skadden DC may be in a bit of trouble.

I walked by Bob Bennett on a street in DC once. He was a lot shorter in person. He was on his way to lunch (... of course).

62 -- Do YOU want to bowl?

60,

So, that those firms -- the partners dont have books of business? All clients belong to the firm? Doubtful.

60 - When you take corporations (or business associations, whatever it is called at your school), you'll learn that "compensation" is salary. What partners care about is not compensation, but equity share of profits. Those are not the same things, "chief." Compensation is lockstep at most top firms -- although that is apparently changing somewhat. Equity share of profits is driven by (1) equity shares owned and (2)book of business.

I'll try this nicely since you were nice enough to call me "chief" -- are you saying those two firms only offer their partners salary (which is lock-step)? Then they would only have non-equity partners. I don't think that is correct, I'm just trying to help you articulate your point.

Regards,
Chief.

Who's left to run their litigation department in DC? Will Pilchen step up? Now I see why Sheehan was forced out

I sincerely hope that my diseased, unemployed, semi-retarded scumbag of a son dies before COB today.

71 -- another business illiterate lawyer. Look it up -- cravath and dpw have lockstep "points," which determines their share of the profits. Equity partners don't receive extra "compensation" beyond that. They ARE the shareholders, and they don't receive an extra "salary" for their work. In other words, even if equity partners work 100 hrs/week, if the firm has $0 profit, they make $0. Their work is their "investment."

Thus, if Bennett had gone to Cravath, he'd be assigned so many points. SO even if "his clients" (at cravath nobody owns the clients) or "his work" contribute 100% of the profits, his share of those profits is determined by how many points he was assigned.

Got it, chief? Sorry this is too complicated for your awesome Business Associations class at Tulane or wherever you are.

73 wins!

74,

That's how all partnerships work. They own equity shares or "points" and it isnt extra salary - its the distribution of profits to the partners. Under your description, no partner would get paid until the end of the fiscal year calculations since they wouldnt know the firms profits. Further, under your model, every partner would make the same amount - per equity share.

Equity partners aren't "assigned" points -- they buy equity shares. The partnership elects to allow (potential) partners to purchase equity shares and set the max number of shares.

The partner's share of profits - is determined by an equation -- which includes (read: partially determined by) each partners book of business, as well as revenue/profit of the office, practice area, etc.

Stop calling people chief - Just because you go to Brooklyn Law does not meet you're hot shit. You are a little shit in the big pond of nyc. Last I checked Brooklyn is a TTT.

fuck skadden

You guys miss the point. He is 70. Skadden probably has mandatory retirement like most firms, or he was being asked to take a lesser role. The same thing happened when I was at WGM - Harvey Miller was asked to give up control of the bankruptcy department - so he left. Ultimately, he came back, but on paper he is not the head of the bankruptcy group. Firms reach a point where they have to let the more junior partners move up, or those partners will leave. Yes it is a loss to Skadden, but if it were going to be that big of a blow, Skadden could easily have thrown this guy far more money than Hogan ever could. I am sure it was an issue of control within the litigation department.

The Big Dogs at Skadden don't face mandatory retirement. See Joe Flom, Sheila Birnbaum, etc.

Yikes!

And yes, it's Carl Rauh, not Carl Raugh.

- former Skadden support staff

78 - While your logic generally makes sense, you are clearly off. After losing Andy Sandler earlier this year, there is no way they were asking Bennett to take a lesser role right now. He was Skadden's star in DC.

On the other hand, they may have asked Carl Rauh to step down as head of DC litigation. I think people are assuming that Bennett was the motivation for the move, but I think more likely it was Rauh.

In any case, this is a coup for H&H. H&H absolutely picks up some prestige points. They still likely need to pull some halfway decent appellate litigators to regain their previous image as a Cov, Wilmer peer.

So what happened at the associate meeting? What did they say about the move and who is taking over?

seems like good news for HH.

76 -- tell that to the freakin v10 partner i just had lunch wit this afternoon. your description is way off.

What do you think "lock step" means in the context of equity partners? it means that no matter how much business "you" bring in, the firm doesn't give you origination credit. your share is driven solely by seniority.

obviously firms pay out profit throughout the year. you don't have to calculate "profit" on a yearly basis -- it can be monthly too you know, or didn't they teach out that in Business Associations?

ok, chief?

84, etc-- Wait, so you had lunch with a v10 partner this afternoon? I assume you were posting here in the comments while you were there? Because it seems wildly unlikely that you were able to find time to get on the train, head into Manhattan, fit in lunch with a partner, and head back to BLS between your posts.

And while you are correct that lockstep means that your points are determined solely by seniority, and while you are correct that you can, technically, calculate profit on a monthly basis, you're absolutely insane and completely oblivious to how organizations work if you think that any organization calculates profits on a monthly or bi-weekly basis (unless they absolutely have to, and law firms don't have to). The payments partners get are advances on their profit shares as of the end of the year, FWIW.

85 -- ever heard of adjunct faculty at Columbia, NYU? I know your law school only gets public defenders in Topeka to teach courses in remedial Lexis research, but some schools actually get practicing NY lawyers to teach substantive subjects, and have a budget to take those profs to lunch!

I didn't mean to imply that firms actually calculated profits on a monthly basis -- they obviously forecast them based on the info they have at the time in order to disperse to the equity partners.

And I see you've backed down on your main point (whether partners draw a "salary" unrelated to profits, and whether profit shares are lock-step at many top firms). Good call, chief.

Bottom line: if Bennett had gone to Cravath, how much business he thinks he brings in wouldn't matter in terms of his equity draw. at HH, they likely gave him shares 10 or 15 times that of the most junior partner. The typical spread at TOP firms between the lowest and highest paid partners is more like 4:1.

Bottom line is that that both guys are hitting manadatory retirement age, and at Skadden are subject to negotiating a deal after that point. They were not happy with the deal terms presenented, and HH was savvy enough to have jumped into the fray at the right time. This is happening at many firms, because a lot of 65-70 year old partners who do not want to stop practicing are unwilling to take a huge haircut because of their birthday. I think you will see a major transfer of talent at many firms that could substantially rewrite the balance of power.

In the older days, partners nearing retirement age simply retired and ceded their clients to younger lawyers. Now, many are moving and taking their clients (and reputation) with them.

With Carl gone, I don't know who will eat all the cookies at the litigation lunches.

84/86--So you're telling me you discussed partner compensation at a school-funded lunch (in which you were almost definitely not the only student)? Unlikely. And I don't know what you are talking about re: backing down on my original point--that was my first post in this thread.

And I think it's really cute that you went to lunch with your prof. Way to out yourself as a 1L. (At the school that I went to (NYU or CLS), that budget only existed for 1L profs)

87--I think you've more or less hit the mark. Although, I'm not sure that Skadden, which made the calculated decision that Bob and Carl weren't worth the investment at this point, would admit that their departure for Hogan is a material or even significant loss to the firm. Personally, I think Skadden could've and probably should've handled this better (tend to doubt Bob and Carl wanted unreasonable terms). Time will tell, though.

89 -- so what's your point? what exactly are you arguing? that cravath/dpw partners eat what they kill? or that their draw is based on factors other than seniority (like client origination)? if your point is either one of those, you're WRONG.

in your post at 76, you say that their shares are partially determined by book of business. Perhaps that's true at the TTT hole you worked at, but not at my firm.

84/86 -- Dude you can't read. I told you in 89 that my post at 85 was the first in the thread. Therefore, 76 was not me. My only point was that you are full of shit if you claim to have talked this stuff over with an adjunct prof who is a V10 partner at lunch today. And you can stop saying I'm a TTT--I went to CLS/NYU and worked at a V5. Fucking moron.

Skadden to Half-Skadden?!?!?!?! What's the world coming to???

92 -- i'm the moron? i'm not the one who thinks it's "wildily unlikely" thqat someone could go to lunch with their adjunct professor and still, somehow, post on ATL within a couple hours. ever heard of iphones/blackberries? or didn't they have those at your "v5"?

94-- You still can't read. With those reading comprehension skills, you better get off ATL and start hitting the books.

FWIW, I heard from a very senior non-litigation partner that this was an issue of BB reaching mandatory retirement age and wanting far more than the other partners were willing to give. For those that don't know Skadden, at 65 partners take mandatory retirement and are allowed a five year "ease into retirement" period of lower pay and less hours.

Bob is 70. Figure it out.

FWIW, I heard from a very senior non-litigation partner that this was an issue of BB reaching mandatory retirement age and wanting far more than the other partners were willing to give. For those that don't know Skadden, at 65 partners take mandatory retirement and are allowed a five year "ease into retirement" period of lower pay and less hours.

Bob is 70. Figure it out.