Figgit-FIRST!

Captain FIRST!

Less money, Mo problems.

good post. no gramatical or speling errors.

Is MoFo the most prestigious / highest-ranked firm to cut salaries?

Good thing most firms won't have any incoming associates to worry about for the next couple of years. Anyone who thinks new associates will be starting in Jan. 2010 is delusional.

I have heard of the terms "California Love," but who knew that it would be equated with my hybrid tough love model? Although not a peer firm, M&F gets the prize for firm of the day as they are the most recent legal institution that has adopted my hybrid tough love model, which is slowly but surely making the rounds near you. Bravo M&F management!

I'd rather read A.S. Byatt's "Possession" instead of submitting to pay cuts at BigLaw in California.

Not for long, 5.

-V25 announcing cut Thursday

If you work at another California firm, MoFo has just sealed your fate.

Mission Accomplished!

Latham is # 1 in Cali

10 - I hope you're wrong, but my guess it that you're correct. This drop is seeming more and more inevitable for many firms.

What on earth do they mean "the market for first year salaries among national firms is undetermined at this time"?? As far as I know, the market is still $160,000 with some notable outliers.

So what is their new scale? Did they previously freeze? If so, is the new scale, 145, 160, 170, 185, etc?

If it is, isn't that just a first year cut?

Oh yeah, I forgot about Latham......

- 5

14<there are lots of first years not at wok yet=still lots of time to change "market"

thank god Im in asia!!!

this is not news - everyone knows that MoFo has been hurting for some time. Firms aren't going to do this in the middle of recruiting season, or right afterwards bc they know that they'll kill their recruiting for years.

You guys are all fucked.

-Latham Secure

It begins. Incoming CA associates at CA firms expect similar news shortly.

Ughhh. You guys just don't fucking get it -- THERE WILL NOT BE ANY FIRST YEARS IN 2009/2010. NOBODY IS STARTING IN JANUARY!

LOL @ treating NYC better than the home office.

Is this going to be par for the course for non-New York firms with NYC offices?

No way good firms like Gibson, Quinn, Munger and Irell follow this trend . . . MoFo sucks and has been having significant trouble for a while ... Latham and OMM may follow

22- it's not "treating NYC better" - it's treating them equally due to COL differences.
HTH

21- then why have the bad press of reducing salaries if, in effect, there are no salaries to reduce?

If they are lowering their STARTING salaries only, then this is not a CUT to current attorneys. Is there any source showing otherwise?

@25 - Is SF's COL much lower than NYC?

jw

I love the 2nd to last paragraph, heehee

Wow, good point, 26. With all of the no-offers, deferrals and layoffs there really probably many people affected by a first-year salary cut.

Is the cut to all associates, all the way up the scale?

PE, i'm confused. You state that every firm is "not a peer firm" which would lead us to believe that you are a partner in a v10 firm. Yet, no v10 firm's have adopted your hybrid tough love model and reduced first year salary. What's the deal? Why hasn't your firm adopted your own strategy? Is the problem that you don't have that kind of power at your firm? If so, then you're probably a non equity partner - glorified senior associate - and will probable be fired soon. Even more puzzling is the fact that you in all of your wisdom would remain at such a feeble minded institution when you obviously could run a more efficient and profitable law firm elsewhere....

Riddle me that bia...

21- firms don't have much longer to start rescinding offers. If no one was starting, why haven't we started to see a tide of rescissions?

28-
yes. it is significantly lower. true, to live in the most desirably parts of SF is as expensive as NYC, if not more so. But it's much easier to live for less in the Bay Area than in the NYC area.

Elie -

Jokes like the Smoky the Bear play on on words are just hysterical. Or should I say "Mysterical." Haha. See I made a funny too. Have you ever thought of going on the road for like a stand-up tour. I mean OMG, I almost pissed myself. Maybe even a desk calendar with 365 jokes like this from old posts. That way each day I can experience that signature Mystal wit a little each day. I've already pre-ordered 10. Great stocking stuffer. Think about it. Only you can prevent Forester fires. Hilarious. Timeless humor.

9, please name names.

Firms stupidly behaved like lemmings a few years ago in setting first-year salaries at $160,000 in their California and NYC offices. NYC is simply a different market with higher hours expectations, the salaries there should be higher.

-- California lawyer

32 - we can revoke offers up until the week before your "start date", so I wouldn't get your hopes up. I expect to see most of the action in November.

Elie, your "Foerster fires" joke is a much better example of the fine line between stupid and clever than our original "Smell the Glove" album cover.

@31: In the immortal words of Maebe Funke--"Marry me!!" As soon as I saw the icon, I skipped by and picked up the very next comment. And wouldn't you know, I didn't miss a thing! As for the article, I don't think that MoFo will be the last firm to come to this decision. It's far from over....except that I have read the last scribblings from "PE"...better things to do with my time.

Tobias Funke: Analrapist

MoFo never really matched the $160k scale anyway, since they cut their bonuses at match time.

Nevertheless, those lemmings Thelen and Heller will probably use this as an excuse to cut salaries.

This comment is addressed to post no. 31.

I addressed your "riddle" in my very first post on this site, which was around the beginning of this year. I am not on the management committee as I did my time there for almost two decades. I have made the suggestion to adopt my hybrid tough love model to the current management committee at the firm; however, the junior partners feel we would suffer tremendous blowback in terms of prestige and future recruitment efforts. Quite simply, they are scared just like the other peer firms. This is not a pissing contest, rather, this is a contest about who can hold their urine in the longest without releasing. Mark my words, a peer firm will have to adopt my hybrid tough love model and when it does, you will witness a fluvial or tsunami of urine fall on associates working at peer firms as other firms will follow. As long as we are stuck in this Obama led recession, my vision will soon be realized.

So much for "one firm" cultute at MoFo.

Firms that pay different salaries across different offices/markets while expecting the same billable hours from everyone are second-rate firms in every respect.

Is MoFo a TTT???

Mystal, suck my ass, you race bating obese Walrus!

So am I to believe that Shanghai and Beijing attorneys have a higher cost of living than attorneys in LA, London, and San Francisco, or do work that's so much better that it warrants being paid more? Or is MoFo just recognizing that their China attorneys just spend more on medical bills due to the smog and pollution?

PE, you continue to tread water in a sea of retarded ideology and bad poetry.

A bit strange how they did the cuts...I guess I would expect firms to keep the home office and NYC at 160k rather than NYC and Asia. Why Asia?

hey so can we get a list of firms that have cut starting salaries? does that exist already?

@ PE - what recession? Dow's over 10k, i-banks are making record profits (some even beating '07)

Maybe it's just law that's in a morass?

PE is full of shit, not urine.

Firms such as Skadden and Simpson have previously paid a small premium of $10k to $20k to ensure that they have their choice of associates. When Simpson raised to $160k, they hadn't expected most other firms to follow. I'm sure they were quite amazed that firms no one has yeard of in Atlanta raised to match them. When the non-peer firms finally retreat to $145, it will restore the status quo that the top ten or so firms want--they get to choose which associates they want, and the others will follow. They have little interest in saving $15k plus or minus per associate by dropping down to $145k at the expense of losing their ability to have their pick of each entering class. Less profitable firms will have to accept that they cannot justify a $160k starting salary and can't afford the top of each graduating class. Its a basic return to ratinoality--the most qualified will, for the first time in a few years, actually get paid more.

About as much luck as Macrinus did when he attempted to cut the pay of new soldiers and impose discipline on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrinus

"Macrinus' reluctance to engage in warfare, and his failure to gain victory over even a historically inferior enemy such as the Parthians caused considerable resentment among the soldiers. This was compounded by the rolling back of the privileges they had enjoyed under Caracalla and the introduction of a pay system by which recruits received less than veterans. After only a short while, the legions were searching for a rival emperor."

Peanuts! The pay cuts need to be much deeper. Associates are way overpaid in terms of the hours worked and skills required to do the tasks. In BigLaw, associates rarely actually practice law. They churn hours, frequently doing make-work nothingness. A resonable starting salary for a BigLaw associate would be not more than $85K, and that would be a gift. Tough shit that they had to pay so much to get their degree. The fact is: Associates add little value to anything in BigLaw.

53 = small law paralegal

Any real doubt Gibson, Munger, Irell, Quinn will follow suit?

PE is an unemployed recent law school grad. Do not fall for his BS. However, he is correct in that very soon, all firms will be cutting associate salaries. Firms do not have to worry about associates leaving in protest for there is no where to go. Those who are overworked can always be compensated with bonuses.

PE is an unemployed recent law school grad. Do not fall for his BS. However, he is correct in that very soon, all firms will be cutting associate salaries. Firms do not have to worry about associates leaving in protest for there is no where to go. Those who are overworked can always be compensated with bonuses.

Agree with 53. When I graduated from law school in 1991 (during the last recession in the legal market), the top starting salary for BigLaw in SF and LA was $65,000. For new lawyers who don't know how to do anything, paying $160,000 is ridiculous.

PE, since you are unemployed and are not a partner, should you consider changing your shtick?

Hahahahahahaha PE is a tool AND he doesn't have a job. Too bad you will never work at a "peer firm", PTTT

MoFo also closed another office - Singapore. Although it was a very small office, it seems worth mentioning. If you're keeping track, that's 2 office closures (OC & Singapore), big layoffs, delayed start dates, and salary cuts all in a year.

58 - What were your rates then? What were billable targets?

In 2007 when firms jumped to $160k, associate billing was very, very profitable. Much more so than in 1991 when being a lawyer wasn't as lucrative. The salary expenses are a reflection of the increased revenue that associates can bring in.

4 - FAIL... check your spelling of "speling" [sic].

The top Boston firms will all hit 145 the moment they have adequate cover. Not so sure about the very top NY firms.

PE's writing skills are very strong ... he probably is a partner or senior associate who graduated from a top law school

-- Rainmaker

this is BS. money grubbing partners. they do not NEED to make this cut.

two things to consider:

1. associates made 100k in 1991. using an inflation deflator of .633, that's equivalent to 158k. so w/ inflation, MoFo should have cut to 158k, not 145k. that would keep salaries on pace w/ inflation.

2. historically speaking, as a % of PPP, associate salaries are actually WAY low.

I'm currently clerking, but I have plenty of friends (we graduated in '09) that have already started. I am not sure what all the "no one is starting in january" chatter on here. Sure, there will be some firms that can't cut it. But it's not exactly "every" firm. In fact, I'd say it's the minority of my friends that are either still waiting to start or don't have a job at all. I also have at least 2 friends that were asked to start earlier, who were originally pushed back to January. And I really didn't go to a very good law school...

55 --- Gibson, Munger, Irell and Quinn shouldn't look to MoFo as a trendsetter ... they are superior firms, and I doubt that cutting salaries is necessary at any of them.

They tend to attract the top quality associates in California, and I'm sure many of those associates will be pissed with their choice of firm if their salaries are cut. Most, if not all, of them surely had choices in NY or DC.

PE = Lat

He posts way to much to be anyone else

No one at MoFo pulls in the corporate cash like I do.

-- Rainmaker

YOU GUYS MISS THE POINT. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS GIBSON, MUNGER , ETC. THE CLIENTS WILL NO LONGER PAY FOR FIRST YEARS, END OF STORY.

61, 58 here. I don't remember what my billing rate was back then, but minimum billables were 1,850 and anyone who wanted to be taken seriously was billing north of 2,000. I understand your point about associates more recently generating greater revenue, but that has been because clients have been willing to pay their rates. Clients are now in full scale rebellion against paying to train young BigLaw associates and have the leverage to get their wish, so starting salaries are likely to come down.

People at California firms:

CHECK YOU EMAIL! The paycuts are unfortunately coming.

I agree with 65's second point. It may be fun to bash associates for earning so much, but compare their earnings as a % to PPP and you'll see that they're actually earning less than in decades past. There was a published study on this in the past couple years, but I don't recall where.

@70: Clients pay the firm's rate. The way the firm distributes that cash is up to the partners. As 65 notes, the partners could easily take a hit in their historically enormous profits to continue paying associates well. In fact, clients would *love* to pay for first-year associates in the sense that, @160K / 2000 hrs, they'd only be paying $85/hr. Obviously, the work quality of a first-year is not commensurate with that of a partner, but the partner's work is not 10 times better. Bottom line: firms obviously have to salary distribution issues to work out; but, like 65 notes vis-a-vis inflation, the wage distortion has occurred at the partner end of the spectrum, not the associate.

65 - thank you. Inflation adjustments are easily forgetten (including rapidly increasing housing prices in California over the span of a couple of decades).

72: Associates at top firms will strike

70 --- Clients who refuse to pay can hire shitlaw firms ... Biglaw's rates are justified, and first year associates can do anything that third or fourth year associates can do, given the proper training

predicting which firms will cut is sooooo easy. those with multi-tier, non-lockstep partnership structures will be the first to cut -- they need to maintain ppp to keep their top rainmakers.

but top ny firms like cravath, s&c, dpw, cleary, as well as firms like w&c and covington, will never cut. they have single-tier, lockstep partnerships, so they can take the "long view" and don't have to sweat certain partners leaving.

MoFo's actions only provide cover for CA firms that are ranked lower (PH, Orrick, etc.) or firms that are struggling and looking for any reason to cut salaries (Latham, OMM).

Firms like GDC, Munger, Irell, and Quinn do not now have cover to lower salaries. They should work to maintain their higher status by maintaining incoming associate salaries at $160K. Otherwise, an argument can be made that they have moved to LW status.

77 = delusional BigLaw member who thinks that all non-BigLaw firms are shitlaw

You pay for the training of new employees in every industry. When you buy a McDonald's burger some portion of your bill is factoring the cost of training some 16 year-old to work the cash register.

The only difference in law firms is that it shows up as a line item on the bill. Clients who refuse to pay for first years forget that.

67,

SF to 160!!!!!

I live in a nice area of SF and I pay a lot more than my cousin who lives in a nice area of NYC. Granted, she has a studio and I have a one-br, but the Lower East Side and Nob Hill are both fairly desirable neighborhoods. I agree that you CAN find cheaper things in SF than you can in NY, but most lawyers don't live in the outskirts of either city. Cost of living isn't really a lot different at the end of the day. COL actually varies a LOT within Cali. LA is is cheaper than both SF and Silicon Valley, unless you live in 90210. I'd say MoFo SF kids are getting the shorter end of the stick than their counterparts in LA.

On the upside, new MoFo associates are probably so desperate for cash right now, they don't really even care. I'd definitely take $145k over nothing.

Way to go, MoFo. Lead the race to the bottom.

San Francisco is a shithole compared to New York. Many million dollar homes that wouldn't get jack shit in flyover states or even NYC surrounded by panhandlers pissing in the corner and you wonder why your flowers are yellow?

SF and NYC are both terrible places ruined by ultra-liberal policies.

I know many incoming first years who have already started at mofo. It's probably more of a move to shift work down to attorneys with lower rates, leaving senior associates more vulnerable. But the claim made by others in the comments section that there will be no first years starting is certainly false. They already have started.

Seriously, east-coasters have no clue what the COL is in LA/SF. A one-bedroom apatment in a desireable part of LA (i.e., somewhere within 10 miles of the legal centers of Downtown or Century City, renting a place you won't be shot coming home to at night), runs for $1,400-2,000 a month. SF is comparable.

so can someone address whether this affects people already at the firm or just those coming in?

88, in New York you'll be looking at 3k plus.

88 has it right. If you work in downtown LA, your options (if you want to have a commute under 45 minutes one way) are fairly limited to live in a suitable neighborhood. The westside, Hollywood, possibly the South Bay, Glendale-Burbank-Pasadena, etc. Those are all going to run you quite a bit. Places like Hollywood and Burbank won't run you as much, but they can be a bit dicey in places. As can Pasadena and the westside, depending on location. A decent one bedroom in the places worthy of someone making $160k+ per year is going to be $1500-$2000, depending on amenities.

Right, LA is like 1500-2k for a decent place. I used to live there for quite a while. But I find that in SF, a comparable place is 2k-2500. And it's not about inflation, either. I lived in both places back-to-back, and the 2k minimum decent apartment in SF is in the renters' market; I talked my rent down $300/month and I still pay over 2k for a livable one-br close to work.
--83

88, 91, 92 etc. - nobody here in NYC doubts that you need to pay 1500-2000 to get a 1BR apt. in a desirable neighborhood. I pay that here in New York too, except I live 25 miles out of the city in the suburbs. You are looking at double or more of that amount in Manhattan. There really is no comparison.

It begins. Incoming CA associates at CA firms expect similar news shortly.

SF and LA are different for commute times, however. One could live in Daly City, So. SF, near SF State, etc., and be within 30 minutes of a downtown office via public transportation. Driving, you are still less than 6 miles from downtown, and traffic simply isn't that bad in the Bay Area. Rents in those areas, for a nice apartment, are considerably lower.

By comparison, to manage the same kind of commute in LA is tougher. Public transportation means you pretty have to live in downtown (add $1k to rent) or live in, say, Koreatown. Driving times dealing with the 405/I10 as compared to 101/280 are about 2.5x worse.

SF and LA are different for commute times, however. One could live in Daly City, So. SF, near SF State, etc., and be within 30 minutes of a downtown office via public transportation. Driving, you are still less than 6 miles from downtown, and traffic simply isn't that bad in the Bay Area. Rents in those areas, for a nice apartment, are considerably lower.

By comparison, to manage the same kind of commute in LA is tougher. Public transportation means you pretty much have to live in downtown (add $1k to rent) or live in, say, Koreatown. Driving times dealing with the 405/I10 as compared to 101/280 are about 2.5x worse.

Ah yes, the perennial Cali versus NYC debate. How many times has this surfaced on ATL?

As someone who lived in SF in the dot com boom (and has many friends still there), and now lives in NYC, NYC is hands-down more expensive. This is not to brag - I'd consider moving back to SF if there were any jobs to be had there. But to have a 1 bedroom apt where a couple could live together in Manhattan, you're looking at 2400-3400. Move to Brooklyn in a non-crappy neighborhood and you're looking at 1500-2200. Restaurant prices are also marginally higher (or rather, the cheap stuff in California is simply better, other than pizza). Is NYC twice as expensive as SF? No, but it's certainly large enough to justify a 10% salary difference. The bonus difference is better seen as a compensation for hours expectations.

Sweet Mother. Less prestigious firms in Texas are paying 160K while MoFo has dropped 145K for Cali? Damn it feels good to be a Texan, living in Austin.

Hey jerk:

There's kids who look at this site. As has been told to you numerous times, stop using the term M_Fo. I find it highly offensive, and it's not fair to give this prestigious law firm such an awful nickname. Shame on you.

Fuck. Now we just need to wait and see if WSGR does the same. If they do, every other firm in CA will follow.

As others have noted, what is the point of lowering salaries for incoming associates when most of them have been deferred indefinitely?

From what I understand, the vast majority of the class of 2009 headed for biglaw have had their offers revoked or have been deferred until, well, forever.

So again, what is the point?

Any word out of Duane Morris? A friend in the placement business told me their Philly office laid off more staff a couple weeks back but it went unreported. Can anyone verify this? Same friend expects more cuts at Morgan Lewis

Does this mean only 1st year salaries are being cut or everyone's (i.e. the new scale is $145, 160, 170) or is it ($145, 170, 185, etc.)

103- They already froze salaries, so it's likely the new scale is $145, $160, $170, etc. This means the associates who were frozen will probably not jump up to the salary they're entitled to, so a frozen second year will go from 160 to 170, not 185.
This will probably be the case at most firms that froze, though interesingly Latham is supposedly going to unfreeze and bump people up, probably in hopes of retaining people.

The wheat is seperating from the chaff.

98 is in a great position, as is the rest of Texas still making 160k. That raise should never have happened, but since it did, Houston/Dallas/Austin associates have the most enviable financial situation in the country: 160 scale, no state taxes, and lowest COL of any cities on that scale. First years are netting nearly 10k a month and can have a sweet pad for 1/10th of their monthly take-home.

Is this ever going to assume some rationality and come back down to earth? If not, V&E Dallas may be the best thing going. (Despite appearances, not a Texan and not working in Texas, just jealous of those who are.)

I love how NYCers cite their cousin's boyfriend's mother's friend's dog's apartment rent as proof positive and representative of the cost of living NYC being higher than SF. People from CA, thankfully, don't just pull stuff out of their asses. I guess you tend to do that when you have a stick up yours keeping all the other stuff in there.

2008 SF Cost of Living index: 182.7

http://www.city-data.com/city/San-Francisco-California.html

2008 NYC Cost of Living index: 177.1

http://www.city-data.com/city/New-York-New-York.html

Anyone who says they are "Latham secure" is delusional.

Times must be tough at MoFo. They have closed offices in Orange County, Century City and Singapore, made big attorney/staff layoffs, deferred start-up dates, lost partners and are now moving to cut salaries. What is the next move?

Salaries may dip a bit in the short-term, but i'm not worried one bit and looking forward to NY to 190! Why am I so sure? Because I am absolutely certain that being an associate, without major bank, sucks.

But, of course, there are a few freakazoids that think life is all about never seeing daylight, working on documents that nobody cares about and having a social circle of 5-6 people (assuming a big deal team) - big law is just their slice of paradise and well, good for them.

But for anyone that is half-normal, that is not the ideal life and there must be clear and convincing paper to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, anyone with half a brain and has paid off their loans will be more than happy to take a pay cut for some sense of normalcy. However, you throw enough cash at anyone, a job can be tolerable.

So I propose the following big law compensation equation:

Compensation = Suckness (a constant) x (Half-Normal Associates - Freakazoid Associates).

For reals, the only thing keeping compensation down is the a**-hat down the hall that thinks turning a doc at 3 in the morning is the cat's pajamas. If he would just flip the f out, stop (secretly) crying in a bathroom stall and quit - suddenly the partners gotta worry about keeping the non-a**-hats around and gotta pay for the privilege!!!!

NY to 190!!!!

Los Angeles catches up with NYC in a hurry when you factor in the damn car. You can certainly spend *more* on housing in NYC if you want to (GTFO of Manhattan already), but the bare cost of a reasonably safe and comfortable existence is pretty close.

Um, 88, you're not finding a 1 BR in a good neighborhood in SF for $1,400. Try $2,400.

How about the fact that non-NYC firms want to recruit the same level of talent in their NYC offices as the NYC firms do.

If non-NY firms do 145k in their NYC offices, you bet they are getting inferior people, as compared to NYC firms that continue to pay 160k. And no non-NYC firms who want to commit to a NYC presence wants to do that...

The Singapore "office" had 3 attorneys. MoFo starts more than half of new associates in a few weeks whereas most comparable firms don't need to make this decision for a few more weeks. They're signaling to the market, but might not have enough pull. If others don't follow, they'll (likely) jump back to 160.

113 - I thought MoFo deferred until March 2010? At least that's how ATL reported it...

In any case, I suspect many NY firms will follow.

114 - They start a little more than half in November and then the rest in April. I don't know how ATL reported it.

Obviously this sucks. I do expect the firm to go back to 160 if nobody joins them, but you're probably right that most firms (outside of the very elite) will move downwards.

MoFo associates in San Fran are paying the price for carrying a poor management team, a failed national strategy and a failed "international" strategy.

Never mind closing Singapore - that is just window dressing. Close New York and London!!

There appear to be some holes in the pink dollar strategy - bummer !!

There appear to be some holes in the pink dollar strategy - bummer !!

There appear to be some holes in the pink dollar strategy - bummer !!

MoFo falls.

Quinn remains.

MoFo's PR/propaganda machine must be earning their money this week if the news stories are correct - salary cuts, office closures, settled a law suit brought by an angry client and the head of technology in Asia defects to Paul Hastings. Tough times.

The Singapore office might have been very small, but it had been open since 1997. Maybe the firm should stop saying that they have an "unrivaled reach across the Pacific Rim" at this point. Maybe they should also hire a new CMO since the most recent one didn't even last a year.

106 - That data is apples to oranges - as an economic geography as opposed to a political one you should compare SF to Manhattan (and I'm including the far north tip of the island to take into account people who live in the tenderloin/hunters point). If you want to include inner Brooklyn and inner Queens, include Oakland/Berkeley (good and bad parts of both). If you want to include Staten Island and Far Rockaway and Flushing, then include Richmond. Otherwise your data is meaningless, because no sane Biglaw associate will be commuting to SF from Richmond or to Manhattan from Flushing.

Fenwick and Cooley will follow. I think WSGR holds strong.

I WISH 145, 160, 170 was the new trend!!! I am at Nixon and am making WAY less... more like 145, 150, 155, 160!!!

@122 - "Pacific Rim" -- maybe they could try something like "Trans Northern Pacific" or "SinoCal". Bit of a stretch given their offices in Shanghai and Beijing are almost virtual offices with hardly any PRC qualified attorneys in them. Drop the "unrivaled" bit -- stretches all credibility. Makes them look like used car salesmen. Looks like their rimming will be limited to SF for now. I think I might apply for the CMO job.

WSGR will absolutely not hold strong, they will drop faster than Paris Hilton's panties after a couple of saketinis.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys!

MoFo management must be praying other firms cut salaries. Otherwise they will lose associates pretty quickly and will have trouble hiring people in the medium term. From a clients perspective, you know a firm hiring at the low end of the market it going to be low on quality. Are MoFo dropping their hourly rates for associates? That would be a surprise.

Mofo has a weak management team. They really need to stop trying to be Latham-Lite. They can't compare. There is way too much dead weight at the TOP. Dead weight partners like to blame their problems on associates. Mofo likes to pretend it is the nicer, softer firm, but it really is more cut throat than any other Biglaw shop b/c the other firms are at least honest about expectations.