Are they also revoking offers to clerks?

2 - no one cares about clerks.

And here i thought Davis Polk were a bunch of turkeys! I am just going to gobble this news up.

I've heard of this firm. And I care deeply about clerks.

Elie, can you please write a post about how these big firm partners - in collaboration with the Bush administration - are sabotaging the American economy by announcing such minuscule bonuses at a time when gratuitous consumer spending is needed the most.

what does it mean to be an associate in good standing? Does that have anything to do accreditation? Would that automatically disqualify any UC Davis graduate who somehow managed to get a job there from receiving a bonus?

This creates an opportunity for the California firms to rise in the associate/student driven rankings by beating these ridiculous bonuses by even $5000.

As a male 3L, my top three deciding factors between the firms that gave me offers were:

1. Salary
2. Salary
3. Salary

7,

UC Davis grads get the same bonus as all the other paralegals.

This ones for Chappy!

This is clearly the fault of the Bush Administration.

Cravath's NYC offices still make DPW's look like shit.

¶¶_____¶¶__¶¶¶¶¶¶¶___¶¶¶¶¶¶¶__¶¶____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶____¶¶¶____¶¶____¶¶_____ ¶¶¶___¶¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶¶___¶¶_¶¶¶___¶¶¶___¶¶_¶¶___¶¶¶___¶¶_____ ¶¶¶¶_¶¶¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶¶¶__¶¶_¶¶¶¶_¶¶¶¶__¶¶___¶¶__¶¶¶¶__¶¶_____ ¶¶_¶¶¶_¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_¶¶_¶¶_¶¶_¶¶¶_¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_¶¶_¶¶_____ ¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶__¶¶¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶_¶¶__¶¶¶¶_____ ¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶___¶¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶___¶¶¶_____ ¶¶_____¶¶__¶¶¶¶¶¶¶___¶¶¶¶¶¶¶__¶¶____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶_____¶¶_¶¶____¶¶

Is Davis Polk the firm that conducted mass stealth layoffs?

- Befuddled in Birmingham

what does that say 13?

Elie -

Congrats on spelling Davis Polk correctly this time.

Listen, it has nothing to do with not being thankful for a high salary and a bonus. But it's hard not to be resentful towards greedy partners who keep it all for themselves. I know for a fact that profits at some of these firms are up after the cost-cutting and layoffs. But bonus are still in the toilet. It goes to show you that bonuses have nothing to do with a lot of hours and good work for the firm and only have to do with retention. Now that there's no where to go, bonuses are terrible.

If firms were not using the poor economy as an excuse to capitalize, no one would be complaining about a $7500 bonus.

12 - Cravath's NYC associates still make DPW's look like shit.

What is the percentage of cumulative Davis Polk layoffs since the downturn?

15, I think it says "Moonman." Is that a reference to Elie or something?

Goldman is paying monster bonuses this year. Biglaw firms can no longer claim they are keeping compensation down to keep up appearances with clients. C'mon man, funk dat.

Elie: No one cares about this TTT firm. We come to this blog for news about prominent firms that we have actually heard of. DPW, or DSW, or whatever this shoe box of a firm is called is clearly a follower and passing out tiny bonuses.

Hell, my sister-in-law is a first-year in a five attorney GA firm, and her bonus was $10k. Please tell us about firms that will actually be around in a few years.

17 -

At this point, it really is just an excuse. At some firms (mine included) people were laid off simply because there's not enough work for everyone to bill 2000 hours per year. All told, those remaining are on track for record billing years. The economy was just an excuse to squeeze every drop of life out of the associates here . . .

But hey. I understand I sold my soul for a paycheck. I just wish the paycheck was larger this year. The partners paychecks sure will be.

Two Comments:

1. I keep reading about how banks need to pay big bonuses so they do not lose talent to hedge funds, private equity, etc. Assuming that this is a legitimate concern, why don't the same arguments apply to Biglaw? The "talent" either will move to smaller boutique firms where they are fairly rewarded for good years (and know that they will make partner if they stick around and work hard for 6+ years) or will not enter the legal profession at all.

2. The associate salaries at Biglaw firms are fair for Monday through Friday, even if this days are long days. The bonuses are supposed to make up for the lost weekends, family time, cancelled vacations, etc. If the bonuses do not do this (as they don't this year), it's time for associates to have some freakin balls and stop answering to every ridiculous partner demand. "Sorry Partner Asshole, I had to dip into my savings account to pay for this vacation because my bonus did not cover it, so I am going to enjoy my time in Mexico by ignoring you."

According to its website Davis Polk, shockingly, does not have a single lawyer who graduated form its namesake UC Davis.

It does list 10 people, however, who graduated from the University of Cape Town which, being in South Africa, is presumably also not accredited by the ABA. Do they get bonuses?

The ship be sinking...

25 LOL

In other news, Cooley Godward has nobody from Thomas Cooley Law School.

Can no one appreciate a fine library?

Darn it. I just looked it up. The Senate Healthcare bill includes a special surtax on the amount of the year-over-year decrease in your bonus payments.

What do Black people usually eat at Thanksgiving?

Darn it. I just looked it up. The Senate Healthcare bill includes a special surtax on the amount of the year-over-year decrease in your bonus payment.

24--Answer: BigLaw associates as a group aren't that "talented;" they're more accurately described as "fungible." The stars will still receive non-lockstep, extraordinary bonuses. The economic pinch simply revealed that there aren't that many stars among you self-important douchebags.

Some many of you self-entitled pricks think you deserve a bonus just because you billed over 2000 hours for the man. You're spoiled and probably went from university to law school because your filthy rich mommy and daddy paid for your tuition. You never had to struggle to get anywhere. You should realize that you're fortunate enough to have a job, so quit whining.

OTOH, big law partners have to realize that eventually the tide will turn, and pushing partnership time tables out beyond what was 5 or 6 years to 10 or 12 is unprofessional. Then tacking on an income/equity title to partnership makes the journey a complete abuse of profession.

Somewhere therebetween, an associate can gain a certain level of competency to practice his profession, and will eventually leave you to find other suckers to train. Clients aren't paying for training anymore. Stop being so greedy and share.

Mission Accomplished!

I go to Cooley, and i saw an ad in the back of Starlog saying if i paid a company 600 bucks, they could get me on the "short list" to be in Starfleet JAG. I paid the 600 dollars but have not heard back from them. Is this a scam? Cooley Career Services they have many graduated working in Starfleet.

31 FTW.

Who cares about bonuses? I'm refreshing every minute waiting for the next installment of "My Writing Is Murder!"

Darn it. I just looked it up. The Senate Healthcare bill includes a special surtax on the amount of the year-over-year decrease in your bonus payments.

@24:

You said: 1. ... The "talent" either will move to smaller boutique firms where they are fairly rewarded for good years (and know that they will make partner if they stick around and work hard for 6+ years) or will not enter the legal profession at all.

The talent is still going to enter the legal profession. I went T14 and about 90% of the students were there because they couldn't think of anything better to do, not because they had conducted a reasonable cost/benefit analysis. The talent will still enroll, will still be saddled with six-figure debt, and will still go to the highest bidder. Also, the good boutiques (i.e., the ones that compete with BigLaw for attorneys) are aware of BigLaw market compensation and match it. Trust me on this, as I live it. In that vein: fuck you Cravath.

You said: 2. ... If the bonuses do not do this (as they don't this year), it's time for associates to have some freakin balls and stop answering to every ridiculous partner demand.

A lot of associates are already doing this. Pay me like I'm at a lifestyle firm, and I'll act like I'm at a lifestyle firm. That's tough to do during the week -- it's not like the insane workload goes away -- but you betcha I'm nonresponsive on the weekends.

I inherited this mess!

I'm Barack Obama?

I've never heard of this Davis Polk firm. Can we please limit these discussions to relevant firms like Kronick Moskovitz?

UC Davis 2L

ATL posts these to piss everyone off, and it works.

Little kids that probably just finished taking Proactiv make 100k+, perform work that could probably be done by monkeys, and complain they aren't getting enough money. As a junior associate, your work is not valued and never will be. That is because your work probably sucks.

I am thankful I won't be reading ATL tomorrow, otherwise I might see another one of these stories and throw up my thanksgiving dinner.

Davis Polk's website doesn't give the opportunity to search for attorneys by ethnicity. What does Affirmative Walrus make of this?

so let's see - i bill 2350 hours this year at an average rate of 465 -- that equals $1,092,750. I am paid 185,000 + 15,000 = 200,000. that seems fair. not to mention that if i worked at least 2800 hours to bill those 2350, my hourly wage is equal to that of an electrician.

43: wages are set by the market, not by what's "fair." Now go bill some more hours. Dance monkey, DANCE!

43,

You failed to take into account:

1) discounts to clients in a sucky economic environment
2) All the many, many $ of overhead: lights, office space, computers, printers, fax machines, IT people, secretaries...etc.
3) $ spent by partners (that is reimbursed) for client development that generates the work that ultimately puts food on your table
4) The $ that goes into recruiting every year, including the year you were hired...read "summer program" and all the $ that is spent on that
5) The fact that your billable rate is higher because you work with others who can check your work...you couldn't bill $435 an hour on your own, I'm sorry to tell you.
6) The $ that partners should legitimately earn as a premium on #'s 3 and 5...because if you don't give it to them, they're going to take their talent and clients somewhere else where they will get paid, and you, my friend, are going to be out of a job.

You really want to complain about 200k this year?

43 - Just because you are billing hours does not mean you are actually generating revenue for the firm. The only people who actually generate revenue are the ones who bring in the business. Similarly, just because the guy at McDonald's flipped 1 million hamburgers at $1 each does not mean he somehow created $1 million of revenue. The people who opened the restaurant and convinced customers to eat there generated the revenue. You, like the burger flipper, are a minimum wage cog just doing the grunt work.

43, unless you were billing your own clients that you went out and signed up, or you billed clients who would freak out if you left, then you and your math mean nothing.

43, if you don't think you're paid the "fair" amount for your labor, why don't you quit and try to sell your precious labor to clients on your own.
Here's a free economics lesson: the clients aren't paying $435 just to get an hour of your time.

You are also free to change careers to become an electrician working 2800 hours a year. Why don't you? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Hey 43. How many of those hours would you have billed, and at how much if you were working for yourself, in a solo practice. That's right, Zero.

You need them a lot more than they need you, don't forget it, or you may end up fired like the rest of them ...

43 also fails to count all the money the firm spends on health insurance and other benefits and payroll taxes.

Does anyone else think that this might be an antitrust violation?

51, was there an antitrust violation when all the firms went to $160k?

To make sure that douchebag 43 isn't working on my matters I'm now checking all my DPW invoices to check and see who's charging $465/hr. I'm now disqualifying anyone now charging that rate from ever touching my files again, and tough luck to those who are guilty by association.

Inhouse counsel

I love all this bashing on 43. Hey 43, tomorrow at the Thanksgiving table you can talk smack like this with your family (provided none of them has any business acumen at all), but please spare us your ignorance.

43,

Actually that's very unfair, considering electricians preform a very necessary and beneficial function where as big law associates do not. Additionally, redundancies preformed by electricians are necessary safety measures that save lives; big law associate redundancies, although commonplace, serve no function except to steal from unmindful clients.

Someone should start a an electricians blog to discuss relevant issues in the electrician field, and put pressure on greedy contractors to pay hard working electricians fair wages.

I don't know what 50 is talking about. Taxes don't affect me if they are hidden and paid by my employer on my behalf.

43 - so go be an electrician and stop complaining.

Darn it. I just looked it up. There is a special surtax in the senate healthcare bill on the income of electricians that used to be lawyers but changed careers because of a year-over-year decrease in bonus payments. Its a fail safe to catch those lawyers who change careers to avoid the surtax on year over year bonus decreases. Man that Harry Reid sure is clever.

52...

It would have been if the employees had all decided that they would only work for 160k...thereby reducing output.

But it was the firms' decision to go to 160, which meant that there was simply more demand than supply, so to keep up, firms moved to match the market rate. In other words, the firms lose by collective action in that scenario.

Here, though, there is a contraction in pay. And it is the firms who benefit through collective action. See the difference?

I love all the criticism of partner salaries. They own the place! It's a rare American worker who has the stones to complain about the shareholders getting too large a return on their investment.

Heres the thing I just dont get. You folks are all whining about the decrease in bonuses -- and you should. But no one is taking the time to consider the impact of the new taxes in the healthcare bills and elsewhere (congress is considering an Afghan war special tax, Pelosi has floated the idea of a VAT etc). The healthcare bill taxes alone are massive on folks in the upper income ranges which most of those in biglaw eventually hope to be (and some of us senior associates already are). We are well and truly screwed by our employers and our government.

@60 - that's because most American workers receive profit sharing incentives.

62, how did that work out for the Enron workers who received profit sharing incentives

51/59--That case'll have a lot of appeal to a jury of your peers if by some miracle you can navigate the seven years of motion practice to get to trial. Imagine the audacity of these partner-robber barrons colluding to only pay you and your ilk $200,000-$250,000 per year. I can taste the treble damages now!

@63, you're right, Enron proves that profit sharing is fundamentally flawed. Moron.

-62

62/65 > 63

60 -- What exactly was the partners' investment? The fact that they have worked there longer?

In a normal business, the owner has put up the capital investment and then reaps the profit. Not so in a partnership of lawyers.

62/65, any half-competent economist will tell you that paying salaries in employer stock (which is how profit-sharing works) is a terrible idea for the employee. Look up the word "diversification." Moron.

"Come on guys. It’s Thanksgiving. It’s time to cherish what you have."

Elie you freaking hippy...

46 and 47 are clearly low level associates (who probably do lousy work) who know nothing about client relations or managing a case. Clients do care about who works on their cases and will not hesitate to make their opinons known especially as associates move into their third year and onwards.

And work from associate to associate does vary, and it makes a difference to us senior associates and the partners who is staffed on matters. Associates are not interchangeable cogs like fast-food workers. Having said that, firms can afford to pay low bonuses right now because the economy is lousy and no one is hiring. For top associates, there are still opporutnities but few and far between. Quite simply, there is no where to go. Talent that would be gone in good times is stuck. They'll take their crappy bonuses and like it.

And whoever asked about bonuses in comparison to finance guys, plenty of them aren't receiving good or ANY bonuses right now for the same reason. There is no need for big bonuses to keep good people right now.

I assume 67 is being sarcastic or not a lawyer.

43 and the partners responding are missing the point. The real fairness issue is the lockstep bonus.

Why should a mediocre associate who bills 1800-1900 hours be paid the same as the top associate who bills 2300-2400?

43 billed about $300k more than the mediocre associate, and for those extra hours she got paid nada. 45's six part argument is irrelevant, because those same costs apply to the mediocre biller.

In these times, the top associates are busy, and the mediocre ones are slow. So while the top associates are doing better work (or they wouldn't be so busy) and making greater sacrifices (billing way more hours) , they get paid the same as the mediocre ones. Is that fair?

72, nobody is forcing the high-biller to join and work for a firm that pays lockstep bonuses.

Every time some firm breaks lockstep, hordes of clueless law students complain and say that they'll never go to that firm because they don't want the risk. As if any sort of merit-based pay would unleash favoritism and be the end of the world.

43 - the bargain is, you work, bill those hours for the partner's client, the partners train you to do the work, and you do so for a number of years until you become self-sufficient and require no further training.

The broken thing about the partnership model is, that, if you're an ass and they don't like you, or if they are greedy and don't want to share, they can easily discard your lifeless husk for another, which they must train for a couple of years before that associate becomes profitable for them.

If law firms were run by corporations, then all the partners who do this would be fired by the CEO, because they are middle managers that essentially discard their most profitable, productive and well-trained employees in favor of cheap, untrained labor. But greed wins, and the law firm model has been replicated to a certain extent by corporations in the form of global outsourcing.

I'll take a slurpee and a dog.

@74, that makes no sense whatsoever. First year associates are very profitable. They don't know shit, but training in this profession is on-the-job billable time. If a first-year associate isn't profitable in year one, it is only because the firm is not giving him enough work.

I'll grant that, in a poor economy, some billable hours will get written off. But if a first-year associate is makes $200,000 (including fringe benefits and overhead), and the first year associate bills 2300 hours at $300 per hour, the firm would need to write off over 72% of the first year associate's billable time for the first year associate to be unprofitable.

I also think that your initial premise of an implicit bargain is unfounded. The bargain is: I'll work around the clock and you'll pay me enough to keep me here. The idea of partner-as-mentor is something from an HR brochure, and not in any way reflective of reality.

Debevoise just announced. No surprise there.

73,

I work for a "top" firm that advertises and internally claims to give hours based bonuses. 3-5 years ago there was a significant difference in bonuses based on hours. But the last few years the differential has been insulting - on the order of $7/hr before taxes for your extra 600 hours billed.

Goldman's bonuses are so high because the managers don't give two shits about the shareholders who own the company. Since in a law firm, the managers are the shareholders, they have an incentive not to be reckless with the firm's money.

45, 46

There are many (perhaps a majority) of equity partners in biglaw that are NOT rainmakers that do not do significnat client development and do not deserve such a premium. Yet they still make 5-10x senior associates Thus arguments 3 & 5 are irrelevant for the majority of equity partners.

1) discounts to clients in a sucky economic environment

you wouldn't need these if you managed cases efficiently and didn't have associates do secretarial and project assitant tasks to boost hours and your take-home pay.

2) All the many, many $ of overhead: lights, office space, computers, printers, fax machines, IT people, secretaries...etc.

General rule of thumb - one third of associate billables goes to salary, one third goes to overhead, and one third is profit for partners. 2000 x 465 = 930,000. For 43, that leaves 730,000 - easily pays for overhead, FICA, benefits and plenty of profit left over for the partners. The extra 400 hours of billings is pure profit lining partners' pockets

3) $ spent by partners (that is reimbursed) for client development that generates the work that ultimately puts food on your table

so by that same token, the non-rain making equity partners should get their salaries cut.

4) The $ that goes into recruiting every year, including the year you were hired...read "summer program" and all the $ that is spent on that

Already cut drastically. You're own fault for spending lavishly

5) The fact that your billable rate is higher because you work with others who can check your work...you couldn't bill $435 an hour on your own, I'm sorry to tell you.

$435 for a first or second year does sound utterly rediculous. Isnt that what a 3rd or 4th year bills in biglaw? But the same unfairness argument applies to a 3rd or 4th year who has already been trained

6) The $ that partners should legitimately earn as a premium on #'s 3 and 5...because if you don't give it to them, they're going to take their talent and clients somewhere else where they will get paid, and you, my friend, are going to be out of a job.

How much is enough? We are talking about fairness

"You really want to complain about 200k this year?"

I do - see 72 and 77

On the Debevoise thread, someone is claiming that true first-years at Davis Polk - class of 2009 graduates - ARE getting bonuses.

Is this true? If so, then DPW is paying more than market (because all the other firms have date cutoffs that would exclude first-years - Cravath in September, Cleary in August, etc.).

43 - the responses to your comment are highly indicative of just how many partners troll this site.

Also highly indicative: the number of partners trolling this site who seem to believe, from a management perspective, that the ~$750,000 difference between what you bill and what you take home is the justifiable margin that includes costs of doing business. When the majority of economists and MBA case studies conclude that law firm management is generally poor, unstable and unreliable, these are the same individuals shaking their heads, thinking, "Maybe at those other firms..." These are, likewise, the same partners who shocked and baffled that their clients, longtime, well-paying clients, leave them to go to a boutique start-up because, as it turns out, it doesn't ACTUALLY have to cost $89,000 to draft a nine-page motion to dismiss nor $22,000 to draft an 11,000 square foot accounting office lease.

Shocking.

CHECK YOU MARGINS.

80 - Or was it poor memo drafting on Davis Polk's part?

If junior associates wanted to actually get paid for the value of their work, I'd take a crap in an envelope for them every 2nd week.

81, yes you're right, a firm with better management would pay a higher salary, like say $400,000, to the fungible employees who have nowhere else to go.

I used to bill 2,000 hours downtown at a top 20 firm where we were packed in like sardines, but moved to a smaller firm in midtown, where I billed much less because there was much less work, and the office was only about 2/3rds occupied and had an expensive rent bill, so I was paying a much larger share in the office overhead. That means that I was not making a profit for the partners after taking the overhead into account, ...but thats not my fault. I suggested we move into a smaller, cheaper office, but the partner said, oh, it wouldn't be "prestigious" to be on 8th avenue. The real problem is that alot of partners are obsessed with prestige rather than profit margin. Prestige doesn't pay my salary, profit does.

This is from the Debevoise thread (comment 37):

"DPW's bonus only applies to class of 2008. Nothing for Class of 2009. Sorry."

Is this true?

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/11/debevoise_plimpton_2009_associate_bonus.php?show=comments#comment-1328465

IS DPW GIVING BONUSES TO THE CLASS OF 2009, OR NOT?

87 - No need for all caps. Prorated share of $7500, for 2009ers who arrived in September, amounts to $2500 - BEFORE taxes.

Class of 2009 gets nothing. The pro-ration applies to Classes of 2008 and past. And why should the Class of 2009 get anything? At this point they have not realized a profit for the firm. If anything, they will not realize a profit until after their first year. They should be happy to be employed period!

To all those unhappy associates complaining about bonuses - fucking leave if you are so unhappy . You know what? You won't because there are no jobs. And Partners know this. So quit complaining. The partners will pay you shit because they can. Get over it. If you are so unhappy with your 20-30K bonus, then look for another job.

If the partners that so many deride are all so incompetent and treat associates so unfairly, how do the partners stay in business? Shouldn't the associates use their vastly superior knowledge to start their own firms and prevail in the marketplace? No one is forcing the whining know-it-all associates to endure so much misery at the hands of the multi-millionaire partners who clearly have no idea how to run a law firm.

90, great attitude. I hope you say that openly to the associates at your firm so that when the tide changes, the good ones actually do leave.

It's funny that all you high-and-mighty partners seem to forget that this whole exercise is a long term process. Newsflash: those associates working at firms that do across-the-board salary cuts, significant layoffs AND give crappy bonuses, are not going to forget it when things swing back around. When they can move again, they will. And they'll move away from your firm.

Sure, there's plenty of associates out there who mail in their time, and probably have no business practicing law. But I'm sure you're aware that there also are plenty of associates out there on their way to becoming the "big shot rain-making types" you all probably consider yourselves.

There's another generation coming up behind you that you're going to have to rely on. Do you really think the new 40-year old GC who replaces your 60-year old buddy at BigCorp is going to want to work with you ? Well, if you do, you'd be wrong, grandpa. And then where does BigCorp go ? Probably somewhere else, probably to the firm where HotShot associate went because your firm crapped on him and told him if he didn't like it, "go somewhere else."

If I'm the associate who wrote the brief you signed, I'm not particularly pleased that my family has to see a 10% paycut, and I'm supposed to get 20k less in bonuses than I earned, so that you can take home 1.6 million this year instead of 1.5. If your response is to "leave if you don't like it," then I will...as soon as I can, and I'll be sure to not let the door hit me on the way out.

Congratulations on your short-sightedness.

Sayonara.

Yes, 92...it has been a marvelous holiday. And as I contemplate the millions that I've earned and saved, you really have me running scared. Imagine how much money I would have if I had not been so "short-sighted"! Whatever will I do when the littles break free from the shackles and come for me? Until then, how about if you just keep racking up those billables? You "earn" whatever bonus I decide to pay you. Anytime you aren't happy with that, just move on. There will always be plenty more where you came from. And be sure to enjoy the holidays without 10% of your salary and that “missing” $20k in bonus.

Thanks for playing the game that I've already won...but you'll show me, right?

93 knows better than to say that openly, of course, because in the current climate there's plenty of associates who'd happily put a bullet between his eyes for that sort of arrogance.

93 knows better than to say that openly for about 500 other reasons as well, which was the point of my e-mail. She clearly missed that point.

And, actually, 93, people like me WILL "show" people like you in the long run. Ask all the partners at your firm who are more successful than you. The ones who don't have the time or demeanor to anonymously tell those who work for them to "eat sh*t or f*ck off."

I may not ever personally "show you" but that's because you're a coward, and I'll never know who you really are. But your kind loses to my kind 99% of the time. You just don't realize it, because your kind can't grasp the larger picture. Much easier to just declare yourself a "winner" and keep on the blinders.

Do you know how the hazing process in fraternities works ? Well, you can always tell who got hazed the hardest, because they're always the person who hazes the next generation hardest. That's you. You were one of the few people on these boards to actually go out of their way to anonymously tell more than half of your profession to "f*cking leave if you are so unhappy." That tells me that you got hazed the hardest. That tells me you that you will declare yourself a "winner", but your'e actually angry and bitter, which is a pretty clear indication you don't feel like much of a success at all. Pretty sad, really.

So declare yourself a "winner" all you want. But we're really not playing the same game here, gramps.

92/95: Here's a "news flash" for you. No one needs you, honestly. I'm sure it makes you feel better to delude yourself into believing that when the economy improves you will become the master of your destiny. But the sad fact remains that most of your peers are as good or better than you -- and there are tons of kiddies in law school who are likewise as good or better than you. In fact, there are far too many young associates and law students in the pipeline for partners to give a shit about you one way or the other.

Just thought you should know.

---Not "gramps"