The New Biglaw Business Model, According to O’Melveny & Myers
There has been so much talk about the death of Biglaw that the term has become a cliché. These are challenging times, to be sure. But many firms are in the process of adjusting to the market, by making long-term plans to revise their business models so they can thrive in the future.
One such firm is O’Melveny & Myers. About a month ago, the firm released a five-year strategic plan to its associates and counsel. At a time when some firms are keeping their employees in the dark about long-term issues, O’Melveny — to its credit — decided to let its people know what management is thinking.
Above the Law has obtained a copy of this five-year plan. The document outlines how O’Melveny intends to compete going forward. Instead of aiming for marginal cost savings by making a few cutbacks here and there, the O’Melveny memo tries to rethink the firm’s overall business model — and gives us a chance to talk, once again, about the long term viability of Biglaw.
Let’s take a look into the O’Melveny’s — and perhaps Biglaw’s — future, after the jump.
The five-year plan begins with a statement of “The Vision.” It’s not exactly visionary: O’Melveny & Myers wants “the most desirable engagements,” and it wants to be “primary outside counsel… to a large and growing list of clients.” It intends to do this by — surprise surprise — providing “the highest quality legal service.”
Then the memo gets more interesting. It expresses management’s plan to “adopt[] a single rate card by FY2012, with volume and ‘investment’ discounts and appropriate alternative fee arrangements.” It announces OMM’s intention of “becoming the leader in providing high-end legal services on a fixed fee basis, reducing costs to clients and achieving superior economic performance through practice management oriented toward cost effective client service.”
The plan proceeds to take a critical look at O’Melveny’s market position. Management talks about the type of clients the firm has, the type of clients it wants, and the kind of relationship it would like to have with clients going forward. It expresses the view that moving in the direction of flat-fee work will be beneficial to the firm’s clients — and, ultimately, to the firm’s profitability. The firm acknowledges that, in order to attract the client base it desires, it will need to re-tool some of its practice groups (e.g., by developing a competitive restructuring practice as soon as possible; bankruptcy partners looking to lateral, send your résumés to OMM).
The memo is commendably candid; it’s not all cheerleading. One paragraph begins: “In the very recent past, our business model, as a whole, has yielded disappointing financial and practice growth results.” The plan notes that O’Melveny’s litigation model, “which depended heavily on high charge hours levels by associates, counsel and partners to offset the impact of discounted rates and increased write-offs of expenses and time, has been under pressure for at least three years” — i.e., well before the Great Recession began.
What’s behind this? Well, as we’ve been telling you for months, outsourcing is coming to — or has already arrived at — a firm or company near you. “Document review and production have been outsourced altogether or client-directed to contract attorneys,” the memo states, “thus eliminating much of the work formerly assigned to junior associates.” These difficulties won’t go away with the recession: “[O]ur litigation clients are looking for rate and fee reductions, and we expect that mindset will continue into the next good economy and beyond.”
The transactional practices — which are treated somewhat more favorably in the memo, making us wonder whether the corporate lawyers played a bigger part in drafting it — face challenges too. Although they “typically charge effective higher rates, have equivalent leverage, and enjoy a substantially higher realization than comparable Litigation practices…. [they] will not be able to deploy and charge for large numbers of associates in the deals that will be done when the economy rebounds.”
What changes have to be made to address these new realities? For one thing, the firm wants lower associate-to-partner leverage. O’Melveny plans to reduce its leverage to “as low as 2 to 1 in some practices,” although this “will be partially offset by increases in charge hours and by fortifying associate and counsel quality.” In other words, getting an associate position at OMM just got a lot harder.
But this document is not particularly focused on associate issues. If anything, the memo is more concerned with what Biglaw partners will have to produce — and sacrifice — in order to help firms thrive in the future:
O’Melveny anticipates that moving to a unified rate structure — one based on (generally higher) New York rates, reading between the lines of the memo — will not be popular with all of its partners. Or all clients — the firm contemplates losing some business in the short term as it moves in this direction. But it expresses confidence that its partners will be able to bill and collect on the new rates, “based on our experience with prior rate increases,” and it also notes that the firm “will seek out opportunities to take on high-value litigation and transactions engagements at fixed fees” (emphasis in original).
If you’re going to (1) raise hourly rates and also (2) use more flat-fee billing, you’ll need hyper-efficient and hardworking lawyers. The plan contemplates this. The memo notes that “a significant percentage” of its top performing associates bill around 2200 hours. O’Melveny believes that if it continues to pay its people “at the top of the market,” it will be able to attract and retain the best people. OMM believes that developing and maintaining its top performers will be crucial in a market where excellent and efficient work product is going to be more important than ever.
That naturally leads to a discussion of O’Melveny’s recruiting approach. You’ll notice that the new plan isn’t all that different from what we are used to seeing from Biglaw firms:
While there have been a few firms that have canceled their summer programs, at least for 2010, it seems like O’Melveny’s approach is the one that most Biglaw firms are taking. Firms still want and need fresh talent. One would suspect that OMM (like its peer firms) is planning on hiring fewer new associates as the firm tries to meet its revised long-term leverage goals. But that doesn’t mean that influx of new talent will stop entirely.
Despite all of the nitty-gritty discussion about the financial future of the firm, the O’Melveny plan makes it a point to emphasize the firm’s core values and commitment to pro bono work and diversity. People interviewing with O’Melveny should expect to be told about the firm’s core principles, and applicants will be judged for fit with these values as well as law school credentials.
As a whole, O’Melveny has taken an impressively broad overview of the market and its position. This is not a plan designed to allow the firm to merely hang on and weather the economic storm; instead, the firm is taking proactive steps to make itself more competitive into the next decade — and beyond.
O’Melveny doesn’t think Biglaw is dying; it’s evolving. The business model is changing, and it appears that O’Melveny is prepared to engage with the new market.
(151) 
Comments
First!!
The key words in the whole memo are "flat-fee billing" and "reduced leverage". However, at the end of the day, I think there will simply be more of the same at OMM.
is this a press release?
No
Interesting piece.
Good or bad for junior associates? Midlevels? Counsel?
To be a top performer at 2200 hours doesn't sound that bad.
At my V10 firm, the top performers are 2500+.
Please post the full document.
6 - Generally good. It sounds like O'Melveny wants to make itself more like Munger or Wachtell - smaller, with top-quality lawyers.
So lawyers already at OMM can look forward to (a) better colleagues and (b) more prestige.
4 - It sure sounds like a press release to me:
"O’Melveny — to its credit — decided to let its people know what management is thinking."
"The memo is commendably candid..."
"O’Melveny makes a point to emphasize in the plan its core values and commitments to pro bono work and diversity. People interviewing with O’Melveny should expect to be told about the firm’s core principles, and applicants will be judged for fit with these values as well as law school credentials."
"O’Melveny has taken an impressively broad overview of the market and its position."
Talk is cheap. Let's see it executed.
What is PPP at OMM like these days?
9 - you can't just become a Munger or Wachtell. They will have to seriously cull the deadweight, shut down some smaller offices, and make the firm more desirable in the eyes of law students/associates (it's a fine firm, but not nearly on the same level as the two you mentioned). If they become like one of those, yes it would be good -- many firms would like to be one of those two. Whether or not they can is another matter.
What is leverage at O'Melveny like today? Two to one leverage would be VERY low.
I am sure this press release is a toned down version of OMM's real strategy to stay afloat in Commissar Obama's economy. In order for peer firms to survive in this economic tsunami, the adoption of my hybrid tough love model is inevitable. We also need to branch out overseas and recruit solicitors and barristers (particularly India and the Phillippines) that will do the job just as, if not more, efficiently than their overpriced and self-entitled minded American counterparts. Read between the lines of OMM's press release. The American law firm model is broken. We need to evolve in Darwinian fashion to keep up with the crucibles created by Commissar Obama's ineffective economic policies. We need to keep our profits intact. If law students and young associates are sacrificed, so be it. No one put a gun to these wretched peons' heads and forced them to leverage themselves out to six figure debt to chase an illusory dream.
This is why I read ATL.
I think it is substantially worse for associates. Decrease leverage, but increase productivity per person. Why let the associates bill 2,100 if they will bill 2,400 for basically the wages? Besides, if they won't bill 2,400 now, they certainly won't continue to try to bill that for the rest of their lives.
Nice post
They have already started to tighten things up over there. They lopped off the bottom 10 percent of their lawyers in March:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/nationwide_layoff_watch_omelve_1.php
How you like me now?
It's interesting that they identify their "top performers" based on hours billed. *If OMM flat-fees clients then hours billed won't matter, only quality and project management skills (efficiency).* If most of the hours junior associates formerly billed are the sort you can outsource to a doc review firm then using billable hours to select the associates you keep seems even sillier.
"Above the Law: Your one-stop source for law firm strategic plans. And naked photos of hot law students."
21 - In my experience, the highest-billing associates also happen to do the highest quality work. There is a strong correlation between good workers and hard workers.
- Big Law Partner
Finally, a law firm that also knows how to run a business. www.goodsharks.com
I understand the predictability arguments for flat fees, but isn't the more significant push for flat fees based on the distrust of clients that their hours aren't being padded, in particular on very large matters where time can't effectively be parsed? I work on smaller ($20k-$50k in fees) transactions where padding the bill would be very difficult, but on some massive litigation where the firm is billing at $1 million a month, it seems like it would be impossible to monitor effectively. That latter incentive also pushes partners to encourage a lot of unnecessary and inefficient research or diligence on dead ends.
O'Melveny is one of the best firms of all time!!!
The O'Melveny Latham (lay off more than half) the first years, or was that just Latham?
Give Latham credit for taking care of the associates it had to lay off. Every biglaw firm has laid people off in this downturn but not a single one has topped the comparatively generous severance package given by Latham. It is unfair for the firm to be punished for being upfront and generous.
OMM will have a substantial cutback in its venture work if it tries to charge New York rates for that...good luck surviving in NorCal on the corporate side.
This memo was interesting, and I applaud ATL for not leaking the whole thing. Leaking a firm/company's entire strategic plan seems unethical to me!
I heard a rumor that OMM pushed start dates for the class of 2009 from December 2009 to December 2010. Can anyone confirm this?
Massive layoffs, check. Low percentage offer rates, check. Yup, OMM is well on its way to a lower ratio. Just wait until the next round of layoffs, then that ratio will be even better.
30 - confirmed. Every firm is doing something similar this week. ATL is a sleep at the wheel.
30 -- not true
In its New York corporate practice OMM laid off half of its 1st years last year and about half its 2nd years.
leverage is already close to 2:1
I have never heard of this "firm". I suggest that ATL create a separate site for firms that are small-time, podunk, fly-by-night, rinky dink, anonymous, shrouded in the unknown, etc. We biglaw folks don't need to sort through this chaff. By the way, that site shall be called.......BELOW ABOVE THE LAW!!!!
Just an FYI, many of the "stealth layoffs at Latham were given less than six months or nothing. So don't tell the public to give Latham credit for being so upstanding. In some cases, they even told people that since they had been slow for awhile, they should have known they were going to be laid off, and therefore should consider the last few months (already paid and before people knew they were to be laid off) their severance. That's cheap and dirty. Especially when they go on a big PR campaign saying they gave 6 months. It's simply untrue.
Basically, OMM wants to be WACHTELL. Blasphemy!
"Getting an associate position at OMM just got harder."
If you are trying to spin this like a good thing for associates, that they are somehow more select, you are way off. This means that STAYING an associate at OMM just got a whole lot harder.
A 1000+ person firm can just become Wachtell/Munger through not hiring as much. Cuts will be made and they will be deep. Of course, OMM will never have the reputation of those firms, so it will just end up a shrunken mess.
PE, you are back!
And to kick things off you used an internally-contradictory term ("Commissar Obama") and an internally-redundant term ("illusory dream"). Rough couple weeks at Rick's?
It's not a memo, it's a mission statement.
Unionize law firms! Associates: organize by affiliating with an existing union and start shaping the new model!
i second 32... some started last week
Did abovethelaw get paid by OMM for this piece? I would be willing to put money on it
32&42: plz name names.
Agree with 43. Pretty impressive of Lat and Elie to combine to spin OMM's downsizing as a good thing.
36,
If that were indeed true of Latham, it would cause a substantial change (for the worse) in my opinion of the firm's conduct. However, the "six-months severance" seems to have been widely reported and oft-repeated. If it weren't true, why hasn't it been challenged more?
--28
23 = holed-up Partner that has not a clue how other practice groups work. You ever done regulatory work on a tight budget? Ever had a client on retainer or who came to you with a project with a fixed fee?
Not sure why this hit a nerve, but 23's statement has to be one of the most ignorant things I've seen posted on this site. Congratss.
Increase billing rates in this economy. Looks like their associates will get even less practical experience as the smaller matters flee to other firms, and they will have to work more hours. 2200 hour expectation as the baseline. Fun, NY comes to all offices.
Their new recruiting plan describes what top firms have been doing for years. What's the difference?
47,
That is probably because 23 is not actually a partner. This is an internet blog where people are allowed to post things anonymously. Welcome to Abovethelaw.
I just saw PE on the side of the FDR changing a tire on his '92 Ford Escort.
Wow, awesome article. Very important.
Way to plagiarize admasmithesq, 25.
Moreover, is the research always a dead end? Clients should be careful what they wish for. If lawyers make more money the faster they work, it will be impossible to “provide the highest quality legal service.” Firms that take an ethical stance during this turmoil and continue to do everything they can for their clients will win. Any firm that sells as many packaged deals as it can, as fast as it can, will become the true Walmart of law firms. Cash-strapped companies will go to them, but no one else. Yes, that does mean something similar to the status quo will remain in the future.
Seems like good news for their incoming associates. If the firm has this master plan of attracting top talent from the "core" schools (I would assume nothing outside of T25) they will have to protect their reputation among the top students from those schools. Rescinding offers, or even delaying further would not fit well into this plan. I see this as very good news for the OMM incomings.
Rationalize much?
1-yadda yadda yadda, we need our firm to make money
2-yadda yadda yadda, let's downsize but call it part of our "strategic plan" to become elite
3-yadda yadda yadda, make our associates work more hours for the same money (i.e, "market)
4-yadda yadda yadda you make partner only if you are worthy and if you're already a "zombie partner" (i.e., you bring in less to nothing) then you will see a salary cut
-All in all, I have no problem with what they are doing. What I have a problem with is their FRAMING tough moves as positives. Man up and admit you can't afford as many associates and the ones you have will have to work longer hours for the same pay. Moreover, admit that partners who are bumps on a log will get paid less and those who kill will eat.
-Why the need to rationalize this as a "strategic vision?"
p.s., Elie and Lat, you clearly LOVE the idea of the biglaw business model dying because it drives ratings/comments/clicks. Word of advice, post a piece like this the following morning and it'll likely generate more traffic. This is NOT that time sensitive.
28
Very few firms have laid off half their first years like Latham.
Giving someone with 150k-200k in student loan debt, who turned down other offers to come to your firm, 45k after taxes isn't exactly "taking care" of them.
I am not aware of O'Melveny Lathaming the first years. I believe Latham, Proskauer, and Clifford Chance are the only firms that have Lathamed first years. Latham brought mass first year layoffs to the V10, until the legal community decided they didn't deserve top 10 status anymore.
53
I don't disagree with your argument, but I have seen partners' interpretations of "always a dead end?" questions that usually follow their surprise that the bill isn't as high as they had hoped for. Just because a firm has prestige doesn't mean that it won't do unneeded work - that it won't act unethically to keep profits up.
Look, I agree that quality has its price, but are cheaper firms more or less honest than expensive ones, which is the question I'm raising? (I don't know the answer and I'm not trying to imply one - I currently work at an expensive one).
- Don't read adamsmithesq, but glad I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do...
Lat & Elie FTW! Great post.
OMM had rather low offer rates to summer's this year...ask around, I know of multiple OMM summers in California offices that were no offered...
Gibson > O'Melveny > lawyers whose pictures appear on bus stop benches > Latham
60
did OMM Latham their summers? how low was the offer rate? are we talking < 50% Latham low? eeee
57 - that is because the overall numbers are not big in a small office
58 - Of course they do unneeded work. Considering what is generally at stake when a client comes to a law firm, I think they would rather we do too much work then to little. There are firms that do as little unneeded work as possible. Many clients know which ones do and don't.
In the recent past cheaper firms have not been more or less honest then expensive ones. However, if some firms begin selling packaged services, that will change. I'm not sure that OMM is indicating that it intends to go that far, but if they do it will be an admission that they are not an ethical law firm. You'll see ads in newspapers, magazines, and on TV touting their package deals. Soon after, you'll see real charges of mismanagement. A law firm simply cannot provide the highest quality legal service with that kind of system.
Bwahahaha! Become a "Munger"?
Munger's billable rate isn't even 1/3 that of Wachtell. Try again.
Staffing offices with nerdy over-achievers does not a successful firm make. There's a lot more to Wachtell than stringent hiring standards.
57,
Are you saying O'Melveny Lathamed first years in one of the smaller offices.
Jebus, Gibson is the only Big 3 LA firm that's held it together. Latham and O'Melveny are over. In LA it's now the big 2, Gibson and Jones Day.
Everyone pushing back 2009 associate start dates to Fall 2010, Winter 2011. It was inevitable. Although shitty in Feb. when I found out I was going to have to wait a year to start, at least I have had time to come to terms, plan around it and find something meaningful to do until then. I think the Latham, DLA, Baker, etc who announced the seemingly ridic year push backs in the winter are looking better and better. Also, I know my firm had a very small summer class but had a very high offer rate. You can criticize all you like about how some of these firms handled things -- I know I have in the past -- but they have done right by the 2009 class as far as I can tell. One step ahead is better than one step behind. Hope I don't eat my words ...
67
Your fucking is on its way. Trust.
Sounds like OMM is finally coming around to the realization that the Big 4 accounting firms came to 15 years ago. Welcome to actually running a business.
Sounds like OMM is finally coming around to the realization that the Big 4 accounting firms came to 15 years ago. Welcome to actually running a business.
Sounds like OMM is finally coming around to the realization that the Big 4 accounting firms came to 15 years ago. Welcome to actually running a business.
62 - 19 offers out of 23 summers is not a low offer rate - where do you people come up with this stuff???!!!
add to 72 - that was for the LA office
70 - Yeah the big 4 accounting firms are perfectly analogous to the big 200 law firms. Perfectly.
68 -
Dont misunderstand. We are all fucked. Just saying my personal experience in BigLaw ass rape is looking increasingly more gentle as the days go by. Could still be in for another go, but happy not be one of those people scrambling maybe having already made commitments, financial or otherwise.
- 67
Latham's 8 inch dong will penetrate us all!
Why has Gibson been the only LA big 3 firm to get through this without fucking the shit out of juniors and summers? That Jones Day partner is right. Gibson and Jones Day are the big dogs in LA now. Latham and OMM can have the scraps.
75 -
We are all fucked indeed. But I do agree with you to an extent. Firms that deferred for a full year -- e.g., White & Case, Latham, etc... -- made the right move and were ahead of the curve. Firms with January deferrals, on the other hand, must be full of complete lemmings. They knew very well back in March that there was no chance in hell work would pick up enough by January to the extent necessary to bring us all on board. All they did was buy themselves time.
Call me a whiner, I don't give a shit. If my firm calls me to re-defer, I will go absolutely ape-shit on the hiring partner who calls me, and will out myself on ATL. I will transcribe the partners response. What is he gonna say besides admit to fucking up.
BTW, I fully recognize that I am not entitled to anything and that others are hurting more than I am. I only take issue with the way these January deferrals were handled. They should have just fired us last year so we could all move on.
Can someone confirm the rumor that OMM is pushing back the class of 2009 start dates till DEC 2010. As an incoming associate I haven't heard anything about pushing back the Dec date.
First sentence:
There has been so much talk about the death of Biglaw that the term has become a cliché.
Next two sentences:
These are challenging times, to be sure. But many firms are in the process of adjusting to the market, by making long-term plans to revise their business models so they can thrive in the future.
Do you actually not see the irony of complaining about a cliche then following with 4 solid lines of cliches strung together?
Who wrote this POS strategic plan, a Phoenix U business grad? Please (said in Gary Gulman's voice).
The new biglaw business model? . . .
You guessed it! Frank Stallone!
2 associates for 1 partner? That sounds great. Mayer Brown has laid off so many associates that it's pretty much 1:1 at this point, and actually in some offices, there are more partners than associates. Which means that partners are doing lots of associate-level work.
64 - I had a dinner with some OMM partners a while back. One of them went into this long story about this international dispute he was working on and how he was quote "Going to spend lots of hours, that will eventually be fruitless." I lost all respect for OMM that day that not only do they have partners who overbill clients, but then brag about it.
Gibson > Jones Day >>>>>>OMM>>>>>Latham
Elie,
Can we please get an official announcement that OMM and Latham are no longer among the big 3 in LA? It's now Gibson, Jones Day, and Skadden; firms that haven't completely fallen apart during this recession.
2200 hours billable a week? That comes out to 44 for fifty weeks (two weeks for vacation).
Pretty much every V10 firm has conducted layoffs during the recession. Latham has just been more open and up front about it--and has given better severance packages.
I'm skeptical about the incoming class deferrals. Confirmation?
79 - if you haven't heard about it yet then it's probably just a rumor
Same shit, different day. Basically, they plan to do the same thing they always do. Pay outrageous starting salaries, hire from Harvard, make people work incredible hours and then act surprised when people leave en masse (or maybe not so surprised).
28, 46: As a stealth layoff, I can confirm what 36 says. Stealth layoffs got nowhere near 6 months severance at Latham.
Always remember this: http://eliemystttalspeaks.ytmnd.com/
are we going to get an article on what deferred attorneys are doing right now? Not everyone got sweet deals for the year
no more billable hours, just flat fees,
yippee!
It the new HMO for attorneys
No more by the hour
all partners must be capitated
bill 10k for a case
if ya can't do it for 10k, oh well, there is some stealth lay-off who will
goodbye PPP
yipee!
93
NO ONE GIVES A RATS RED ASS ABOUT DEFERRED ATTORNEY'S
TTT
92
What the fuck is your problem, leave Elie alone.
Some people are so jealous of others success, namely Elie's.
13
you are an idiot
97, 92 just Rick-Rolled us.
Now go over to the Biden poll and stick it to Elie by voting for Caption "E."
Jones Dayers - mentioning your firm as one of the big dogs in LA does not make it so. It is not well regarded in CA, or by and large even relevant.
Enjoy the firm's opacity, though.
65 - I can't believe it took someone so long to call out the Munger SA who was lumping Wachtell and Munger together.
93 -
This blog has no power to influence anymore, unless as a way to alert firms about when its safest to deliver bad news (apparently in clumps so it flies under the radar). There is no stigma any more, get over it.
I read exclusively for sharting comments.
what a fucking PR stunt - ATL sells out - that should be the headline. lemme guess, their 'new media strategy' involves working WITH the blogs rather than try to hide from or outsmart them? all the phrases like 'top legal talent' blah blah ... the little 1Ls have to be rubbing themselves in the nether regions, when in fact OMM has just told you that you're going to bill more hours for about the same amount of money as before. some 'prestige'!
OMM > *.*
I am not fucked. We need to bomb Mexico back to the stone age.
-DOJ Secure
"Compliance LP is staffing an immediate document review project in Washington, DC. We are seeking recent '09 law review graduates or graduates from top -tier law schools, awaiting bar results. The project will require 50-60 hours per week for 5-8 weeks at a competitive rate with OT.
Interested and qualified candidates must be conscientious, posses a strong work ethic and be eager to wok in a professional working environment. Document review preferred, but not required."
HOFSTTTRA RAPE = FAKE
http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/hofstra.rape.case.2.1189029.html
This is a terrific article. Well done ATL.
much ado about nothing
TO LONG DIDN'T READ.
This was way too long on commentary and only excerpts of the real document? WTF?
15 - You did shtick about a suicide. Please go away permanently.
That is all.
107 - if you EVER mention Hofstra on these boards again, at least have the decency to include a shirtless picture of Wayne Chrebet.
Asslobsters: post the document so we can judge for ourselves. I'd rather see with my own eyes than solely trust the your characterizations.
Every year OMM comes out with a business plan full of sweet sounding cliches and the firm sinks deeper into the toilet. To the extent your "analysis" deems this mission statement to contain anything of significance, you are being naive.
Many firms are ready to pull the trigger on this method of billing...
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1533830/mayer-brown-reed-smith-set-champion-fixed-fees
Please post the whole document
All those soon to be out-sourced OMM folks are going to have a grand ole time living in a van down by the river.
78 - I doubt a partner will make the call this time. Rather, they will have a HR person make the call and she or he will have the script down pat. There will be no going ape shit.... sorry buddy
Flat rates aren't new. Fees are very often capped for corporate transactions, and 99% of the time that cap is blown. It's functionally the same thing as a flat rate.
Would any rational person take OMM or Latham over Gibson at this point? I don't think so
Anyone who thinks that law firms can or should stick to the old billing model is kidding himself. Changes like these are inevitable.
121,
No changes have been made yet. This is all academic. What needs to change is the partners' expectation of profits, not the BIGLAW model.
Jones Day as the #2 firm in LA? Hahahahaha. What a joke. No one respects this place in CA
Does OMM still have ABA accreditation?
Sorry to say, but I agree with 123. I work at Jones Day LA and people in this town are more likely to think we're a spa than a reputable law firm...
This is the best item ever posted on ATL. O'Melveny is to be credited with this strategic vision of the future. And yes, they are concluding that the current model for Big Law is broken and in need of extreme makeover. They seem to be uniquely in-tune with what their clients and external marketplace are telling them as well. A plan that speaks the unvarnished truth and attempts to get at the new realities of big law. I wish them well.
This is the best item ever posted on ATL. O'Melveny is to be credited with this strategic vision of the future. And yes, they are concluding that the current model for Big Law is broken and in need of extreme makeover. They seem to be uniquely in-tune with what their clients and external marketplace are telling them as well. A plan that speaks the unvarnished truth and attempts to get at the new realities of big law. I wish them well.
OMM loves to hire from Loyola LA.
WHY ARE WE PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO A SMALL-TIME FIRM LIKE OMM WHEN A MAJOR PLAYER LIKE MAYER BROWN HAS STILL NOT EXTENDED ANY OFFERS TO ITS SUMMERS, WHOM REMAIN LOCKED IN AN EXCRUTIATING LIMBO? THIS CALLOUS INJUSTICE MUST BE REMEDIED.
Thinking of Mayer Brown as a big time player is almost as laughable as thinking of Jones Day as a preeminent law firm in LA
130
compared to the competition in LA (Latham, OMM), Jones Day is a preeminent law firm. Sorry about your tiny pink poorly managed layoff factory bro. Shoulda gotten that Gibson or Jones Day offer.
117
lol. please continue this schtick
can you please post a PDF of the full document? thanks.
131 - Actually, I took an offer from Gibson. But still, I would work for Latham or OMM in a heartbeat if given the choice between them and that shit hole non-transparent "one firm worldwide" Jones Day nonsense
131 - Actually, I took an offer from Gibson. But still, I would work for Latham or OMM in a heartbeat if given the choice between them and that shit hole non-transparent "one firm worldwide" Jones Day nonsense. You should probably keep that "bro" talk to a minimum, it makes you sound like a fuck
The salad days of being a mindless BigLaw associate churning day after day through piles of documents are over, which is a good thing. Law firms are actually going to focus on hiring and training good associates who can think critically. The downside is that they will hire fewer of them.
35 - why not "Beneath the Law"? Isn't that catchier?
Who is the comedian who mentioned Jones Day in the same breath as Gibson and Skadden.
Anybody who thinks this is a good thing is fucking retarded. This "vision" is just extreme version of the old days - fewer opportunities more slave workers to be taken advantage of. What the fuck is wrong with you people? So its OK with you if you are part of the 2% that is thriving? Selfish idiots
This is not a new vision folks. This is how Baker & McKenzie has been run for the last 20 years. Say what you want about Baker, but they have been ahead of the curve for some time. Now other firms are going to have to play catch-up when the economy kicks into gear.
.This business plan works - see e.g. Baker's financial gains in the last 5 years and their mere 3% decrease in revenue this year.
Does it suck for associates? Sure does. Does it work for Partners? Absolutely. And that's all that matters in Big Law
A firm cannot be both a fixed fee firm and an alternative fee firm, especially fixed fees. The models on which both are based are fundamentally at odds with one another. There is a reason no firm has successfully been both. So this plan ain't gonna happen.
Well, they got one thing right. Most of what the masters of the universe who post here do, could easily be done by Ranjeev Patil Esq for $20/hour from his basement in Mumbai.
So, in other words... OMM is going to build its firm on the corpses of dead associates.
142--QFT
After being at the firm for over 12 years, I hate to say it but OMM is sinking. Revenue is in the toilet. Clients aren't paying their bills. The partners are all turning against each other. Junior partners are getting trampled. Senior partners are fighting over clients and internal referrals. It's every man for himself. There will only be 2 new partners firmwide this year. I predict that the most profitable partners will jump ship after their last draw this fiscal year-end (Feb 2010). A new round of stealth layoffs have been completed this month and another round will be coming at the end of October. The pyramid will collapse on itself. I heard that this is how it went down at Heller about 12 months before its collapse. It is sad to see because there are some really good people at this place (but not enough to overpower the bad people).
How about a new thread: "Odds of OMM's survival"
:)
First associates complain firm management doesn't tell them anything, and then, when they do, it gets leaked to a gossip blog. Whatever happened to confidentiality, to respect and loyalty to your employer? Whoever leaked this memo deserves to be fired.
- Not a lawyer
@ 145--
Revenues are down? Clients aren't paying their bills? Partners are fighting amongst themselves? Like this isn't happening all over the BigLaw world.
It's bad, but it's not unique.
Anyone know offer rate this summer in Century City?
:)
:(