Boo. 2.

How do you seem a reduction in compensation?

So, Dorsey let's associates keep their jobs, but reduces their pay when the firm is doing poorly. Unless Dorsey associates are given assurances of getting above market bonus payments when times are good, then the Dorsey associates are getting doubly screwed. First, when time are bad, Dorsey associates are made to bear the cost by getting reduced pay, and then, when times are good, the extra money just goes to the partners. Lesson: Don't work at Dorsey if you have a choice.

4 -- I'm willing to bet that few if any have a choice.

Not to worry, I'm sure the associates will keep their incomes up through rampant insider trading as usual.

Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts sure didn't "cut" the Tennessee Titans any slack last night. At the end of the day, football and the practice of law have a lot in the common. They are both team sports, where you have to keep your head in the game. You have to score points to win. And it's best to have a strong tight end.

Layoffs plus salary cuts -- one might call it "hybrid tough love." Does anyone have a view as to whether hybrid tough love is an appropriate course for peer and non-peer firms?

Thanks in advance.

Moving away from lockstep is just a strategy to reduce total associate compensation.

Anyone here about Faegre's new invention, the "Zone of Partnership"? Apparently, they've gone to a two tier partnership -- but instead of letting junior partners call themselves partners, they are associates in the "Zone" who might get called up at any time. Confirmation?

oops, hear, not here

@6 -

Insider trading is one of the skills associates are required to master in order to make partner.

Before Andrew Rimmington, there was O'Hagan.

The ship be sinking...

Associate salaries got totally out of control prior to this year, same for partner salaries. Since partners own and run the business, it only makes sense that they cut associate salaries first, but don't think for a second that partners aren't taking a huge hit to their personal bottom lines. Everyone is going to have to get used to earning less money in the years to come, because lower income is the new normal, along with much higher taxes on that lower income. Welcome to ObamaLand.

Minnesota is TTT. And I went to college there. Salary cuts + it's already snowing = Ouch.

14 is right. I bet that firm is down prob 35% or more in their gross receipts. We lawyers are going to make less money for the foreseeable future. I bet Future Elie already knows this.

I bet current and incoming associates could easily make a successful Section 90 claim...

Love Al Michaels; better then both PE & Jake.

Assoc salaries got out of hand in the past few years? Where's that coming from? They grew large for two basic reasons: one was that times were good. That is enough explanation, but would also favor cutting them when times where bad. The better argument for increased assoc. salaries is that historicually, assoc salaries were laggiing. I don't recall the numbers anymore, but historically assoc salaries were 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 or something like that relative to partner salaries. Then partners boomed and assoc salaries stayed low. Then partners realized they needed to up assoc salaries in the early 2000's to try to regain some of the lost ground. I'd like to see the numbers now, between partners and assocs. Since I make less than a big firm starting assoc., and I'm a contract partner regularly beating big law, I'm not too upset. Still, fair is fair, and if partners were getting fat while keeping assoc. salaries artificially low, then that's just exploitation. Which is odd, since that's what big law likes to help its clients do, exploit. Ohh, the coming home to roost.

Assoc salaries got out of hand in the past few years? Where's that coming from? They grew large for two basic reasons: one was that times were good. That is enough explanation, but would also favor cutting them when times where bad. The better argument for increased assoc. salaries is that historicually, assoc salaries were laggiing. I don't recall the numbers anymore, but historically assoc salaries were 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 or something like that relative to partner salaries. Then partners boomed and assoc salaries stayed low. Then partners realized they needed to up assoc salaries in the early 2000's to try to regain some of the lost ground. I'd like to see the numbers now, between partners and assocs. Since I make less than a big firm starting assoc., and I'm a contract partner regularly beating big law, I'm not too upset. Still, fair is fair, and if partners were getting fat while keeping assoc. salaries artificially low, then that's just exploitation. Which is odd, since that's what big law likes to help its clients do, exploit. Ohh, the coming home to roost.

19/20 - saalries stayed LOW!??!? 160k for a 25-year-old with no experience is low? wow.

Starting salaray is $110K - same as Faegre and the model at DW for future associate comp is very similar to the approach employed by Faegre.

What I don't understand is how this situation at D&W is apparently not related to affirmative action, Elie's weight, the pernicious interference of the Socialist International, or yet-unpassed tax policies of the current Administration. All thinking people know that black people---whether obese or preternaturally fit--- and their communistic backers abroad, aim to bring down this great country.

21,

I think 20 meant that the salaries stayed low compared to partners in terms of the ratio. No one would disagree that 160 is amazing for someone with a brand new degree.

20 - times were "good" only because clients were only mildly bitching about the firms overstaffing their accounts with first years when an experienced contract attorney or paralegal would do better. Those days are over, so be happy if you find a job as a contract lawyer.

Im applying to the direct student loan place for a position as an enforcer. I will harrass my classmates and most of ATL often. The minute Elie is one day late on a payment, there will be constant phone calls. It may not be fun to be a lawyer when there is no work, but it is still fun to be an ass, so I will suceed in my career goal.

My administration views this as a complex phenomenom. On the one hand, the equalization of income between young lawyers and those who currently are employed in shovel ready jobs saved or created by my administration is praiseworthy . On the other hand, the exploitation of these young lawyers by profit seeking partners is not. On the whole, both hands indicate that it is only through strong government action that we can achieve pervasive wealth balancing where no group benefits more than another.

In summation, I support the lowering of associate salaries and will raise taxes to eliminate any resulting benefits achieved by partners.

Barack x

Marianne - Your statement that you will "take care of your own" was a lie unless you mean yourself and your obsessive need to run marathons. Hypocrite.

Dorsey & Whitney just need to dissolve. No reason to drag this out.

21 - 19/20 here. Yeah, I agree stupid ass people from big law schools were being overpaid out of law school. I'd have love to make $160, $140, hell, even $100 stragiht from law school. The actual dollar amount isn't my argument. It is that relative to partners, associates were being paid low. Again, I forget the ratio, but when associate salaries became a big issue, the foxnews-type legal papers ran with the actual dollar numbers, but the nyt-type papers, those with a brain, ran with the dollars relative to the partners, and demonstrated that associate salaries were actually low. I recall that someplace actually argued $200K a year would be the level that brought back the historical parity. Crazy, I know, but those were the smart facts, not the dumb numbers.

raaarrrrrgh

19/20/24 etc

This industry is controlled by partners with clients. An associate for the most part has very little impact on the bottom line and is replaceable so long as there as a good supply of associates. The more law grads there are, the greater the supply is. You can call this exploitation if you want, but it is really just good business sense.

Given that model, a 4 to 1 ratio of a partner salary to an associate salary is very understandable.
I don't know why some young lawyers think they should be paid almost as much money as the partners they work for. If you don't have your own clients, you have almost no leverage, regardless of the quality or quantity of your work-product.

28 you should ID yourself so that DW can lighten its load by firing your dumb ass...you are an embarassment to all lawyers.

That's so disconcerting, especially in this economy. I just got extended an offer for a firm and believe me, it's nowhere near what my friends are getting.

Whenver I see thse posts about salary cuts and reduced salaries, I wonder if those firms are also cutting the rates etc. I know rates do not matter much with clients asking for discounts and fixed fees but I am still curious. In my case, I am a V50 firm and my salary was frozen in January yet my rate went to the next step (due to me having another year of experience).

20,

Associate salaries rose rapidly during the late 90's and early 2000 because of the competition for talent. Back then, there were other non-law firms competing for "associates" with big bonuses, stock options, etc. that BIGLAW responded by starting a salary war. Remember the days of Gunderson Dettmer and Brobeck (Brobeck is gone, is Gunderson still around?)

Clients never liked the idea that they were funding the ever increasing associate salaries. As associate salaries increased, so to the billing rates. Law firms then learned that this was another way to increase revenue and profitability. Most of BIGLAW fueled their record profits by annual fee increases, which fueled further increases in associate salaries.

With this economic downturn, clients are no longer tolerating fee increases. Some clients are also demanding BIG discounts from last year rates. The rest is simple math -- firms cannot afford to continue to pay large salaries to its attorneys (associates and partners) with the reduced billing rates and reduced billable hours due to lack of work. Anyone who thinks that partners are getting "fat" by reducing associate salaries in this economic disaster is seriously misinformed. Many of the partners I know at BIGLAW are bracing themselves to take a substantial hit in compensation (as they should) but are also more concerned about where business is going to be coming from in the future and the survivability of their firms.

Wow, this is sad/troublesome. I don't work at Dorsey, but I interviewed there in the "good old days" (I'm class of 08). Seemed like a genuinely nice place to work at the time, I doubt the morale is what it was a couple years back. I will say that if the partners are taking a comp hit as well/doing this to preserve associate jobs, it's better than the alternative for those who take a haircut. Better to be employed and looking than unemployed and doing the same...

Wow. Thoughtful comments + fewer schticks = a better read.

Interesting, I always thought lockstep pay was implemented in the first place to prevent the inevitable onslaught of discrimination lawsuits based on unequal pay from a naturally litigious pool of employees. Maybe it was just pure laziness.

There is no such thing as "equity" in the legal profession. I mean, if you and I are partners that own a factory, and you try to take the factor for yourself, then I can sue you for the value of my half interest. If we are law firm partners and you try to take the client relationship, then I am just out of luck if you succeed. Because a partner cannot contractually bind a client to using that partner for future work, the partner has no "equity" in the income producing asset -- the client. This is why we speak of partners being "de-equitized" which would be nonsensical in any other context. In the legal business, "equity" is merely a license from a law firm's management to receive a potion of the profits for that year. A license that can always be taken from you.

Everyone should get used to watching their compensation shrink as it will happen everywhere. You should be grateful because less pay is always better than no pay. The managing partners who had expected things to turn around are still in a state of denial and thus the salaries of lawyers remain inflated well beyond where they ought to be. Bit by bit the cuts will come until finally it will make more sense to join the union take the janitorial position than to continue practicing as a lawyer.

Anytime employees are paid regardless of performance is a recipe for disaster in the long term -- look at any industry that is heavily unionized -- auto, teachers, etc. There are some good talent and people in those industries, but there are also many underperformers that realized that by doing less, they are effectively getting paid more by the hour.

I've never been a fan of my firm's lock step structure as I consistently perform at a higher level than my peers. Those who fear a merit based pay structure are those that are lazy.

NY to 190!

New suggestion:

Jettison the incompetent partners first. BigLaw's near-equivalent of academic tenure for parters has run its course. End the FTT incestuous aristocracy so that resources can go to the productive members of the firm, instead of the guy whose daddy knows (or is) a senior partner.

Next, cut the self-entitled FTT associate hacks with Messiah complexes who got the job because they did well on an LSAT, which has about as much to do with legal ability as what the test-taker had for dinner the day of the test. We don't even decide where to go to lunch based upon a 30% correlation coefficient--why should we run businesses that way?

I imagine you could unload no fewer than 1/4 of every BigLaw in this manner. Financial problem solved, firm remains stable with competent employees, clients can be charged less. QED.

Dorsey associates should just file a UCC-1 financing statement against the assets of their strawmen/strawwomen. Then they'll be free!

44, why don't firms just pay all the average to below average associates to not even come to work? Would that be fair? Oh, yeah, that's what's happening right now. Fuck you, asshole.

"Sources at Dorsey contend that only 5 percent of associates will see a reduction to overall compensation."

From what I hear, sources at Dorsey are also shopping a New York area bridge. Anyone buying?

27 + stupid. Why no reasonable critique of the Bush admininstration? Unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; a ballooning deficit; an illegal, unnecessary (off-budget) war in Iraq paid for by U.S. taxpayers; an unregulated financial sector that conspired to bilk the American people out of billions of dollars; war on the middle class; blocked research on stem cells and other ideologically-motivated policies that have proven to be disasterous; and a rejection of science (e.g., God's loving touch, not Global Warming, is changing the climate).

Obama, while he hasn't been perfect, has in 9 months been light years ahead of where Bush took us for 8 years. Please don't even insinuate that this mess is Obama's problem.

Wow, if that 25% to 35% number is true, that is a deep cut and Dorsey must be experiencing a good amount of distress. This isn't like cutting salaries for newbies or 1st years, most of whom were overpaid to begin with. That was an easy way for most firms to cut back. On the other hand, the seniors and midlevels that survived the layoffs are usually proven commodities in practice groups that still have a fair amount of work. These are the people performing the majority of the work on any given matter.

Not that any midlevel or senior has anywhere else to go right now. Even the government is overflowing with applications. Just have to sit there and take it for the most part.

Wow, if that 25% to 35% number is true, that is a deep cut and Dorsey must be experiencing a good amount of distress. This isn't like cutting salaries for newbies or 1st years, most of whom were overpaid to begin with. That was an easy way for most firms to cut back. On the other hand, the seniors and midlevels that survived the layoffs are usually proven commodities in practice groups that still have a fair amount of work. These are the people performing the majority of the work on any given matter.

Not that any midlevel or senior has anywhere else to go right now. Even the government is overflowing with applications. Just have to sit there and take it for the most part.

Don't let the law firms control your strawman! File a UCC-1 today!!

@48 - I think you mean "fault."

Obama's problem = yes
Obama's fault = no

The 25-30% number is complete BS. The 5% is correct. Everyone else goes up from what they are currently making and that doesn't count possible bonuses for hours and discretionary bonuses.

FYI ==> The SEC's 2010 summer program for 2Ls [1Ls only in NYC] is accepting apps through 12/15/09. Also, the SEC's advanced commitment program for clerks and 3Ls is accepting apps and closes 12/15/2009. The pay isn't close to BigLaw but there are many other aspects of the job that make it worth considering. Fed employees have today off! Good luck to those who are interested.

#53, You're assuming the discretionary bonus gets paid, which it did not this past year.

Bonus for hours = LOL

46,

Your and my concerns are not in any way contradictory. I say fire the lazy, megalomaniac FTTs, whether partners or associates. You say fire the lazy, megalomaniac attorneys. At BigLaws, the two are more or less interchangeable.

Can I safely assume from your King's English expletive that you are an FTT? If so, sorry to offend--if you're one of the 2% of FTTs that actually earn your keep, I will be the first to defend you should FTT incestuous partners care to strike you in order to line their pockets.

Who moved my $160k?

44, yours reads like a short man's rant. Railing about LSAT scores? Seriously? I don't know anyone who gets a job based on an LSAT score, unless you're saying that to get to a good school, you need a good score, and that gives you a better chance at Biglaw, but in that case, get over it. That's how the game works and you knew it going in. Plus, firms require actual high levels of performance in law school, not just LSAT and school alone, so it works out in the end.

44 blew the LSAT! Haha

Where is Elie's diatribe about Obama failing to win the Nobel prize in economics? Obviously only racism can explain this slight.

Will other, smaller MSP firms follow? Oppenheimer, Maslon, etc.

This is actually a slight pay increase for incoming associates (from 108 to 110K). As for more senior associates, the shift is towards greater discretionary bonuses and individualized pay determinations. The best and most productive senior associates will actually make more money under the new arrangement. As with any shift away from lockstep the associates making the least money for the firm will make the least money themselves. How exactly is that not fair?

What goes around, comes around. I was with Bogle & Gates, an old-line but sleepy Seattle firm with a raft of unproductive attorneys, when Dorsey came knocking back in late 1998. Bogle dissolved (it didn't take much of a push to knock it over) and Dorsey took about half the Bogle lawyers. So I'm delighted, in a sort of schadenfreudish way, to see Dorsey facing the same problems.

-- Old Bogle-ite

I used to work at Dorsey. I found it to be a great place with good people.

Why does it not make sense to cut salaries when business is down? Associates tend to forget that they are merely employees...like factory workers in an auto plant. Employees work hard and deserve respect for the sacrifices they make, but at some point, they have to accept the fact that salaries are based on market demands. Employers pay employees what they must based on the supply of and demand for the services they offer. People who fail to understand this have never been asked to be responsible for the success of a for-profit organization (and as soon as they are given this responsibility they quickly realize how naive they once were). If you're an associate and you think you deserve more, then open your eyes and ask yourself what you can do to earn more...the answer is that you can try to become a partner. If you're lucky enough to become a partner then you will quickly realize how things work...you must bring in business. If you're just sitting back and passively doing work that is spoon fed to you by partners, then (although the work is difficult and requires great sacrifice) you will continue to earn an associate's salary because there are lots of people who are available to do that...it's not as valuable as you think (don't get me wrong...you deserve respect...you just have to stop complaining about money...you will receive what your services are worth to the people you are selling them to...nothing more). Yes we (partners) make money off the services we buy from you, but there are lots of people who can do the work you do...so we don't have to pay much for it. If it makes sense for us to pay more then we would...just like when firms bumped salaries up to 160 a few years ago in response to the competition for talent we were facing from banks (it was getting harder to attract people and hold on to them...and we could afford it so why not). People pay what they must, not what you think you deserve (it's the same reason why clients pay high billable fees...they have to). If you want to make more, then you have to be creative...you have to think about how you can increase the value of what it is you are selling...that's capitalism. If you don't like capitalism then that's a completely different debate...which is a fair debate to have...but just realize that this is really what you are talking about.

In short...please stop whining...it is a sign of weakness and reveals the fact that you have never been in charge and do not understand the dilemas that responsibility brings.

65 = Marianne Short

65 = H. L. Mencken

34 - if you don't like the offer then don't accept it.

59, 60,

Nope, I'm probably living better than you right now with a secure BigLaw job. I'm just a much-needed critic of inane statistics/factors that bear almost no resemblance to success, which seems to be par for the course in BigLaw hiring practice and FTT admissions. Only through criticism does real change occur.

More importantly, I'm a crusader against BigLaw as it exists today. You delude yourselves to believe that the legal profession is a meritocracy. It isn't. It's a cesspool of secret-handshaking blue-blood incest, generally stifling the non-privileged from climbing the ladder of success. Foucault's notion of biopower has been vindicated. Any practicing lawyer who is not self-important and self-righteous (which generally excludes FTT, though there are obviously exceptions) knows this.

Go ahead and call me sour grapes, despite that I have no reason to be sour. Just see who's behind the next economic collapse. My guess is, I'm (regrettably) in for another I-told-you-so moment, as the FTT vultures carpetbag the productive members of society yet again. Perhaps in that moment, you'll realize that it was not the individuals, but the anti-meritocratic incest system, that made it possible.

What does FTT mean?

the LSAT tests your ability to recognize and exploit patterns based on an arbitrary set of logical rules (in the oldest sense of the term)

the practice of law is recognition and exploitation of patterns based on an arbitrary set of logical rules

in short, doing well on the LSAT (170+) requires a willing and conscious adjustment to the way one perceives reality before approaching a specific language of assignments. i think it's a fair (though flawed) indicator of who can, three years later, learn to efficiently digest information to surmount their supervising partners' and clients' challenges. getting a 180 doesn't mean that you'll be a good lawyer, but an inability to poop out a 170+ might mean that you'll have real difficulty.

put another way: if you can't learn the language of a really easy test, how will you learn the language of the law?

18 = 7

This responds to 48.

I firmly agree with your position. There can be no doubt that the current situation has resulted from the failed policies of the last 9 years (excluding the last 9 months). Prior administrations have overemphasized the creation and accretion of wealth at the expense of distribution of wealth which has led to the phenomenom of cost cutting at law firms to maintain profitability. My administration is taking strong measures to neutralize the profit making incentive so that one day every American will be equally underemployed as opposed to there being an uneven distribution of employment and ultimately wealth. It is my sincerest hope that one day every American will be able to look at any other American and know that he or she has no more and no less than them.

In summation, I thank you for expressing your views. It is only with the help of citizens like you that we can achieve our goals.

Barack x.

54, you stupid, hornblowing slag.

Mission Accomplished!

They are lying. This a pay cut from the levels associates were at before the cut. In particular, 3rd thru 5th years are getting screwed the worst. aren't those the associates normal firms want to reward the most?

Firm -wide, 3rd thru 5th years are making 40,000 less than under the old system, with a chance to make the same bonus as before. No increase here - just a big fat pay cut. Irresponsible decision yet again. Shame.

They are lying. This a pay cut from the levels associates were at before the cut. In particular, 3rd thru 5th years are getting screwed the worst. aren't those the associates normal firms want to reward the most?

Firm -wide, 3rd thru 5th years are making 40,000 less than under the old system, with a chance to make the same bonus as before. No increase here - just a big fat pay cut. Irresponsible decision yet again. Shame.

75 - sounds like you may not be interested in working for the feds...no problem, plenty of folks will apply...

65 = Marilyn Short-sighted, a.k.a. Marilyn Short-of-leadership-skills.

78 is wrong (at least with respect to Mpls) - the cuts are no where near that large. Worst case scenario, a Mpls 7th year should have been making base of $145K and is now making a base of $130K - a reduction of 10.34% - that assumes (i) the 7th year was dropped to the lowest floor of $130K; and (ii)received no bonus. If 78 is referring to other DW offices, please provide the math to substantiate the cut.

Come on 75, all 54 did was let people know about employment opportunities - what is wrong with that? Get a grip.

80: a.k.a. Marilyn Short-changing-the-associates.

80, 83-Marianne, not Marilyn. Doh!

48--

"Barack Marx" is a conservative. There is therefore no reason to trust him. Or any reason to believe that he is NOT stupid. I agree with you completely.

Barack Marx is ignoring the facts, and trying to go back to the way things were done in the failed "trickle down" system of Bush and Hoover.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones was at 8279.63. Today, it is at 9864, an increase of 19%. Next year will show another steep increase as the economy starts to get back on its feet and people start to find work again. The Obama policies seem to be working just fine, contrary to the self-interested musings of the greedy conservative types.

There is no real reason why Minneapolis salaries should be as high as in major markets. Now if biglaw firms in major cities take these same measures, than what incentive is there for someone to go to that firm and deal with the much higher COL, other than desparation? Why would an intelligent person take out 150k in debt with interest for the prospect of a 125k biglaw job in Manhattan that still requires the crazy hours? Do firms really want to build from this model?

This responds to 85.

If you are labelling me as a "conservative" because of my desire to conserve and preserve the human spirit from the soul crushing ethos known as free market capitalism, you are correct. In that regard I am more of a preservative than a conservative. I agree that there is no reason to believe that my policies are "NOT stupid" -- many of them are. But my policies do not primarily come from the mind, they come from the heart.

I am distressed, however, by your citation to the Dow Jones industrial average. Never has there been a more accurate barometer of inequality and concomittant human misery. I take no pride in the fact that shares of stock have risen while shares of human dignity fall. I am ashamed. But rest assured that my administration will move forward with all due speed to make sure that no one will profit from the increase in the stock market. One day each of us will own one single share in this great joint venture we call America and on that seventh day I will rest.

Barack x.

Now that Faegre and Dorsey have cut starting pay, will any firm in MPLS pay 120k starting as a number currently do?

81 - know ur facts u lame brain. R u a partner and do have access to the pay of all associates in every office? I didn't think so, so quit providing false info in a futile attempt to salvage whatever ounce of reputation Dorsey has left.

Here's the deal minny associates r the only assoc who have NOT been screwed by this. NY, Seattle, Cali - you know, the cities where it really matters have been hit the hardest and in particular Seattle. in these important offices, the mid-levels are getting 30k to 40k per year less than under old regime. No one has any faith in the "discretionary" bonus and in any event the bonus existed under the old system until it, too, was suspended.

Get ur facts straight, loser.

The old system is dead folks, wake up. All over the country associate salaries are going to be adjusted to fit economic reality. The reality is that base pay will be lowered and bonuses will be paid to those working hard. 89--and how busy are the NY or Cali associates?

Barack Marx = PE

LOL 85... The dollar is in the toilet, penny for penny with any gains in the stock market, unemployment has risen dramatically to near great depression levels, he is continuing the war, and Barack Marx has given hundreds of billions of dollars to his campaign contributors, the banks and the Realtors.

All the while, he has conspired to artificially inflate property values and thus keep rents higher, benefiting the rich and upper middle class at the clear expense of the bottom 40% of the income ladder.

Hope and change indeed.

Anyone know the effect of this on the Seattle office? What are they making over there, anyway?

There are an awful lot of dumb people on here. No wonder Dorsey is such a dumb firm with all the dumb people working for it.

90 - you are missing the point. Let me help you. The issue is not whether the old system is dead (clearly at Dorsey it is). The issue now boils down to two key questions: 1) when cuts are made, are they market (at Dorsey, the answer is vehemently no!) and 2) when cuts are made, is the firm being honest. The answer to question 2 is that Dorsey is LYING to everyone by saying this is an increase. THAT A LIE FOLKS. Cut cut snip snip lie lie.

What's awesome is that dorsey is really getting beat up today in this blog about the cuts, as it should be. Maybe next time Dorsey will be honest to folks. I don't think people are nearly as pissed about the cuts as they are about the lies.

By the wAy, Dorsey has gotten more bad publicity during this recession than any other firm. It makes me really nervous.

That's because Dorsey is open about what it does--unlike many firms. There haven't been any lies and at what other firm have partners given back bonuses to try to avoid associate layoffs--and there haven't been any associate layoffs

96: BULL-F'n-s^%&#^&#. Case in point: A couple of years ago, the DW NY office switched to a NON-LOCKSTEP payscale. Except that they kept 1st and 2nd year associates at $160k/$170k to DECEIVE people into thinking they were paying 'market' salaries. The base salaries for associates 3rd year and up fell within a RANGE for each class year--and the top of the range for every year was $5k-$20k BELOW then-market salaries. Pretty deceptive to me. And their bonuses are pretty much non-existent. (Of course, these below-market salary ranges are even lower now, after a salary freeze and two salary cuts.)

Why does ATL keep harping on Dorsey's cuts? Many other firms, including direct competitors, have cut pay scales as much or more. Many of them have also laid off attorneys, which Dorsey has not.

Stay tuned for this year's bonuses to the productive associates. 97--you sound like maybe you aren't.

92--

I'm certain that you're kidding. You're telling me that property values are inflated at the moment?

The dollar went down...that was always to be expected in a situation like this. That's what happens when your country is the forefront of a global crisis, because President Bush lifted the wall between investment and personal banking. Less money is protected, so there is higher risk in the currency as a whole, so the dollar's value goes down. Standard corporate finance, my friend.

As with unemployment. Have you been reading the newspapers? Nobody expects employment to go back up until 2011, even though we're inching out of the recession now. But firms are more conservative with their hiring, opting for greater security rather than greater gains. A private business equivalent of socialism, if you like.

95. What you don't realize is that it doesn't matter how much Dorsey gets "beat up" on a blog. Top law school graduates will still go to work there because it is generally regarded as the best law firm based in the Cities and the only one with truly national reach and name recognition. People will go there because they want the name on their resume, whether as a platform to build their biglaw career or, more likely, to give them the credential they need to some day go in house with one of the big Twin Cities based companies (i.e. Target, Carghill, etc.).

*P.S. I know some people say Faegre is the better firm. Even if that were true (and I offer no opinion one way or another) the surplus of good law students that want to work in the Cities is such that Dorsey will still get more quality applications than they want even if they lose some applicants to Faegre.

I wish my tuition costs would also adjust to "economic reality" as 90 puts it.

102--sadly that won't happen as law schools are huge money-makers for universities which are also being pinched these days because endowments crashed.

100 - Are you really that stupid? Why don't you google the Glass-Steagall Act and see when it was repealed.

100 - Yes, absolutely they're inflated. In many places due to speculation prices more than tripled. You think they've gone down by two thirds or even half to get back to the trend line? Not by a long shot, at least in the pricey urban areas - do your research, some areas are still up by more than double since 2000 while incomes went up by less than 40% over the same period to the peak and have fallen off even further since.

Some of the outlying burbs have already been hit hard, but urban L.A., S.F., etc. have a looong way to go before prices are even remotely in line with incomes. (Think home prices should be 6-10x the average income of a neighborhood now even though historically it's been 2.5-4x for decades and no bank will loan you 10x, or ever would before the bubble?)

And in any event, whether you agree with the above or not, Barack is undeniably using taxpayer dollars to try and keep prices up! He is working hard and spending hundreds of billions to make the rich landlords richer and the rent paying tenants pay more rent. He is also working the rest of us taxpaying serfs hard to give hundreds of billions to his crony banker campaign financiers.

If you think he is championing the cause of the poor, you are deluded to the point of inability to see right in front of you. He is doing what most politicians (and certainly all leftist politicians) do - expanding the power and control of his government. Period.

This responds to 105.

My friend President Sarkozy recently taught me "la plus ca change la plus c'est la meme chose." That is french for the change you can believe in.

Barack x.

Associates of the world unite! Komrades, do not walk into the trap of the "partner" bourgeoisie.
Those owners of the means of production -- they sink into despair as they see the numbers returned from the farms of litigation. Despair!
And yet, the writing on the wall is so clear to them, that they do not see our hammers and pitchforks, as we clear the fresh Minnesota snow off the wall for them and make the coffee.
The time has come to ... oh what the fuck. Just take the damn pay cut.

I hear Orrick will be doing the same. Massive cuts to be "made up" (it will never happen) by bonuses (that never come).

I hear Orrick will be doing the same. Massive cuts to be "made up" (it will never happen) by bonuses (that never come).

I hear Orrick will be doing the same. Massive cuts to be "made up" (it will never happen) by bonuses (that never come).

Good grief. I am so glad I am not working at that shithole. As a 5th year, if I am not making at least 200k, I would go to some start-up in-house and take a crappy 100k salary and a stock options. At least with that roulette wheel you have a chance of winning big instead of some bloated butterball of a partner telling me what to do.

105,

Look up the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. See who passed it. Then do some research and figure out what it did.

I'm not quite so sure why you think that Democrats just want to expand government for the sake of expanding it (as if the Republicans don't want to do the same thing though, say, bailouts). You might not agree that expanding government is good, but there's no reason to think that Democrats care about expanding government just for its own sake.

And, unless you're God, there's no real reason for anyone to believe you when you say what the "right" price for a house is. Home prices have gone down almost everywhere. To say that they are still inflated is pretty hard to believe. If you want to pay less, then buy a cheaper house.

would dorsey please just fire their associates already and put them out of their misery. poor guys. don't prolong their pain. this is the worst decision yet outta that firm. please dont expose them to anymore abusive decisions. thank you.

Yes. Finally the associates are getting what they deserve. I'm tired of them sucking all my partner profits. Lower associate salaries further. But I do agree we should have been honest about it. The last 48 hours have been difficult and productivity has been way down.

How long before this house of cards folds forever?

115 - as soon as the market recovers. Greedy pigs.

Dorsey has become the model of what not do in a recession. At least there will be a model for the next recession, when Dorsey is no longer around.

Why does that firm feel the need to subject itself to ongoing negative publicity. Has any other firm made this blog as much as Dorsey? Before the recession, nobody knew who the hell Dorsey was. Now, everyone knows the firm "Dorsey", and not for good reasons. My oh my....not a good few months for this firm.

What is a dorsey?

112, at least spend 5 minutes looking for data before closing your eyes and shouting "La la la la" while you dream about Barack the One. (And I note you simply cannot answer to the fact that he is fighting to keep rents higher for the poor to benefit the rich - hurts, doesn't it?)

Try Googling New York Times 100 year home price chart for a start. Then go look at current levels (we're still way up there in many places) of the Case Shiller home price index. Then go look up wage growth from 2000 to present.

Stupid and lazy is no way for a man to live, son.

112, I believe Bill Clinton signed the CFMA into law.

Hate to break it to you 89, but your numbers are wrong - not that you will find confirmation of that on this POS blog.

I concur 121, 89 has it wrong. 89, you could provide your comments in a more constructive manner as well. In any event, not that I agree with what DW is doing, but let's at least be honest about it.

In short, the worst case scenario is about an 11% cut (regardless of office) with substantially larger bonuses available. DW does have a good track record with giving bonuses, so the hope is that the trend will continue. Additionally, less than 5% off all associates are likely to see any cut in pay as many will actually received a modest increase in base salary under the new system. Not that Faegre ever says anything, but I suspect that DW's new system is very similar to Faegre's system, both of which now start associates at $110K in Mpls.

122, I don't know where you got your info, but you are pretty much right on from what I have heard...sorry 89.

14 - You're an idiot.

122 is correct. Dorsey has done things wrong in a recession, 117? You mean by not having associate layoffs? You mean by having partners reduce their bonuses to try to save associates jobs? You mean by having meetings to explain what is happening? Yeah, you are right. Shoulda just laid off 30 associates and gone on their merry way. Was that the way to respond in a recession?

119,

And therefore, what? People pay more for housing. Great. People also have much larger homes on average than they did 100 years ago. People want more, so they pay more. That's not rocket science. Buy yourself a 1200 sq. ft. house, rather than a 3000 sq. ft house, and your cost will go down.

Speculators only gain in the housing market if they can gauge how much people are willing to pay for homes. If they get it wrong, they lose money. Ask those who went into real estate investing in 2007 how much money they've made.

So basically you're just guessing at what home prices "should" be. If you're so sure of yourself, vote with your feet and buy a cheaper home. Settle for less. Otherwise, pay the "inflated" prices...which in turn, proves they're not inflated, because you're willing to pay for it (unless you think there's some kind of country-wide cartel that forces every home buyer to artificially raise the price they're willing to receive for their house...although I wouldn't put it past you after the other crazy things you've been saying on this blog).

I feel really sorry for 122. DW's manipulation has worked on you. Of COURSE everyone is receiving a modest increase over where they CURRENLY are. That's exactly what DW wants you to focus on. The true issue behind which DW is hiding is the fact that the cuts put assoc way below what they were making before the first cuts and freeze, inclusive of bonuses under both systems. Don't be so easily fooled, 122.

127 - DW is paying the same as Faegre in MPLS. I think that DW and Faegre set the market there. Not to mention, look around the country, the norm with most large firms is about a 10% drop - which is exactly what DW and FB have done...this is all much ado about nothing.

Thanks again 126 for failing utterly to answer to the issue and showing yourself to be both lazy AND disingenuous!

Since you're apparently too slothful and stupid to look at the data even when the sources are presented to you, (e.g., PER SQUARE FOOT prices skyrocketed during the bubble, not just overall prices - this is not about size), it seems you must be one of those Obama/D ticket voters who think he earned the Nobel prize for being black and elected and will defend his policies no matter what.

Guess what - you're defending the government artificially propping up prices and giving taxpayer dollars to industry who contribute massively to campaign financing (both the Realtors and homebuilders are in the top 5 PACs), so don't pretend you're all for the free market determination of prices here and I'm the one saying what prices "should" be - I'm suggesting they can be whatever the market will bear. You, on the other hand, are arguing that the government SHOULD be giving tax dollars to rich homeowners and Realtors and deliberately artificially inflating rents for the poor. Own it.

129...

Calm down, buddy. I'm still asking you, therefore what? Prices of hamburgers have gone up; prices of soda has gone up...prices of everything has gone up. When you and I sit down and negotiate how much you're going to sell your house for, we're not speculators. If nobody is willing to pay the price for your house, it's not going to sell. You'll have to lower your price. So again, the price can't be "inflated" unless you really think that every homebuyer in America is part of some evil scheme and plot to screw you out of a house. In fact, even the speculators have an incentive to lower the price if it means their going to be able to get more homebuyers in this market.

I take it you're house-hunting at the moment?

If you disagree with Obama, that's fine. But you haven't answered the question as to why he would want to just artificially inflate (to use your word) the size of government just for the fun of it.

So...uhh...own it.

hahahaha, I'm so glad I left MN. Dorsey is supposed to be the "best" firm in town and it is still a total piece of shit. I was almost regretting leaving for a minutes, but now I know it was the right choice.

131--we are glad you left--you are no doubt a tool.

132, I'm glad I'm living in a real city and no doubt making at least twice what you do.

-131

132--I enjoy Mpls (not sure what your real city is) and I make a hell of a lot more than you do--putz.

134, I think you were responding to 133 (not 132) but I can guarantee that unless you are a partner, if you are working in Minneapolis you are not making as much as I am. And even if you are a partner, the way some of those firms are looking, I still might be making more than you. Go freeze to death.