On Friday, we gave you a sneak peek at the new rankings being developed by the Association for Corporate Counsel. The organization is asking its members to submit reviews about the law firms they work with based on a five star system.

We told you that the ACC rankings were still a work in progress, with many firms not having enough reviews to consider their rating significant.

Still, the ACC would have preferred to keep its list a secret from the general public. The ABA Journal reports:

The ABA Journal asked the Association of Corporate Counsel for comment. Media representatives pointed to an online statement and a blog post by ACC President Fred Krebs. “It is premature and inappropriate at this time to cite ‘rankings’ of law firms given the limited number of evaluations submitted thus far,” Krebs says. “The ACC Value Index is in the early data-gathering stage, and it will take time to develop a robust database.”

It seems that the ACC’s real problem is that it doesn’t want its rankings to be termed “rankings.”

Check out an email from the ACC to its members after the jump.

Our recent Career Center survey asked about compensation structure for salaries and bonuses at your firms.  The results reveal that reports of the death of lockstep compensation have been greatly exaggerated: a large majority of respondents — over 75% — say their firm still pays base salaries on a lockstep scale.  And despite the tough economy, over 96% of respondents expect a bonus this year.   

Check out the full survey results after the jump — and visit the Career Center, powered by Lateral Link — for more on which firm has announced an end-of-year salary freeze, the latest firm to join the hybrid-lockstep compensation bandwagon, and which firm is now rescinding offers to new associates.

Full survey results, after the jump.

Wednesday, we told you that the Association of Corporate Counsel was compiling a ranking of law firms based on evaluations from its members. We also told you that some law firm partners were very concerned about this list.

We have the list.

The ACC Value Index currently has responses for 448 law firms. Big and small, big city and secondary markets. Sadly, the vast majority of the firms have very few responses. Apparently corporate counsels have better things to do than ranking the quality of legal services they receive. Most firms — including some of the bigger names like Cravath and Sullivan & Cromwell — have three or fewer responses.

But some firms have generated more reviews.

After the jump, we look at the top ten and bottom ten Am Law 200 firms as ranked by corporate counsel.

New Mexico law professor Erik Gerding started off an interesting discussion in the blogosphere with his post, Death of “Big Law School’?, on the Conglomerate.

Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog and Larry Ribstein at Ideoblog have already weighed in.

Gerding’s central thesis is that problems with the Biglaw business model will have major effects on the law school business model:

It would likely mean the end of the law school boom - with its expanding law faculties and the bumper crop of new law schools. Like it or not, the business model (I hate applying that term to legal education, but can’t think of another one) of many law schools is heavily dependent on students getting high paying law firm jobs to pay off high law school tuition. Law firms are also prime benefactors of law school endowments. Without corporate law consuming law school graduates by the dozens, law school will face massive economic pressure.

You’d like to think that. But there is only one way to exert massive economic pressure on law schools, and it is not happening yet.

We receive a lot of interesting emails here at Above the Law. Once law firms started deferring their deferred incoming associates for a second time, we started getting emails like the one below. Since I don’t really know how to respond to the people who have been asking this type of question, I figured I’d throw it out to you guys for your expert advice:

Can you do a story about the size of deferral stipends? Particularly, breaking down the math of expenses showing that some firm’s stipends are too small. For instance, [Redacted] is paying deferred first years only $3300 per month before taxes. After taxes this only comes out to like $2600 per month. Most law students went to expensive schools with $150,000 debt (not to mention undergrad debt), and have $1,000 per month loan payments starting this month even if you select the maximum 30 year repayment plan. Under the 10 year payment plan, loan payments are $1500 per month. When you consider that rent in New York, DC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco is at least $1,200 (being very very conservative), that leaves no money to pay for things like food or utilities. They expect us to basically spend more than we make for 3, 6, 9, 12+ months? This is practically a layoff. I don’t have the finances or rich parents to go 6+ months with no money. Firms like [Redacted] need to pay at least the market $5,000 per month so that the deferred first years have enough to live on. Especially when our original offer letter promised us “market compensation.”

Is there anything useful we can tell this person (and the other incoming associates in the same position)? Let’s try after the jump.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but the National Law Journal reports that partners are successfully hanging onto their jobs despite this recession.

Associates and “other attorneys” are not:

Law firms since 2005 had increased the number of “other” attorneys — a category comprising counsel, of counsel, senior counsel and staff attorneys — to help handle boom-time business.

But in 2009, they cut about 10% of those attorneys, for a loss of 1,113 lawyers. By comparison, NLJ 250 firms shed 8.7% of associates in 2009. This year, 46 “other” attorneys worked at the average NLJ 250 firm, compared to 50 the year before.

Yeah, it is not a good time to be an expensive senior counsel or of counsel that doesn’t bring in business. On the bright side, at least senior attorneys and counsel have a career track record they can market if they have been laid off.

Staff attorneys cannot say the same thing. Their troubles have been well documented. Staff attorney programs getting pinched because of the recession generally. And the increased reliance on outsourcing is a double whammy to staff attorney job security.

But after the jump, the NLJ reports that partners appear to be safe.

A little while ago, we asked our readers to tell us if their jobs are making them sick. Over 51% of our respondents reported feeling some kind of depression.

I guess that means we have some fantastic attorneys reading Above the Law. A new study from Australia says that general unhappiness has a positive correlation with many of the the skills great lawyers posses:

The study, authored by psychology professor Joseph Forgas at the University of New South Wales, showed that people in a negative mood were more critical of, and paid more attention to, their surroundings than happier people, who were more likely to believe anything they were told.

So the happy idiot is actually a very smart person cursed with a pleasant disposition?

I always thought that being a miserable bastard was a symptom of Biglaw success, not the cause of it:

“Our research suggests that sadness … promotes information processing strategies best suited to dealing with more demanding situations.”

More from bizarro world after the jump.

You know how much we love rankings around these parts. But apparently there is a list of law firm rankings out there that actually matters. The National Law Journal reports:

An Association of Corporate Counsel law firm rating system unveiled last month has triggered a lot of interest from the association’s in-house lawyer members, who have submitted 1,500 firm reviews. Lawyers at firms are less enthused. …

Since the ACC initiated its “value index” last month, its members have shared their opinions about the performances of 500 law firms. The ACC has used the mainly anonymous input to rank firms on a five-point scale.

Unfortunately, there is one humongous catch:

The evaluations and ratings are viewable only by ACC members.

Why, Association of Corporate Counsel? Why? Why produce a new juicy list of clients actually rating the quality of legal services they receive, and then keep it private? We all want to know what you think.

Sorry. “All” is probably a little bit strong. Law firm managers don’t seem to like this list very much. Details after the jump.

With most associates just trying to avoid joining the growing ranks of unemployed attorneys, partnership prospects might seem like part of a distant and unfathomable future.  But in what might be a surprise to associates who have been laid off or suffered salary cuts, many law firms are making a healthy number of new partners. The National Law Journal reports that the overall number of partners nationwide in 2009 is actually higher than in 2008. 

Visit the Career Center, powered by Lateral Link, for more on which firm has a five-year non-equity partner track, which firm does not require capital contributions from new partners, and which firm went from promoting 34 attorneys to partner in 2008 to promoting 0 in 2009. 

If you are a mid-level associate in Los Angeles and you really want the inside scoop on how to grab that brass ring, come to the Career Center Professional Development panel on November 17, hosted by Lateral Link and Proskauer Rose, for a discussion on long-term career planning, partnership prospects and in-house careers. Panelists include Morgan Chu of Irell & Manella, Mike Woronoff of Proskauer, and Vivian Yang, GC at Citysearch. Attendees will receive 1.25 CLE credit hours.  Click here to learn more or to register.

We have done a number of open threads on the bar exam as results in various states have been released. Congratulations to all those who passed.

But what about the few, the unhappy few, who did not pass? We know that the pressure was greater than ever this year to pass the bar on the first try. The fear is that people who did not pass the July bar would be summarily shown the door by their law firms. That fear only increases for incoming first-year associates who have been deferred until January and haven’t actually started working yet.

Has the worst-case scenario happened? So far, we have not heard of a firm that decided to fire everybody who didn’t pass the July bar. Do people who failed the bar expect to get one more chance in February? Have the firms communicated at all with those that failed this past bar exam?

It was hard enough for incoming associates to get a job in the first place. Hopefully nobody ruined their employment chances by not passing the bar on their first attempt.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of state bar exams

Ed. note: This post was originally published at 4:27 p.m. today. We have changed the timestamp to place it at the top of the page, but we will eventually return it to its original place.

We have confirmed the news of a Cravath bonus match with multiple sources at Cleary Gottlieb. One exchange went something like this:

ATL: Any good news today?

CGSH: No. Cravath news. Bonus FAIL.

So the 2009 bonus market is probably going to coalesce around the Cravath-level bonuses — unless S&C shows up and trumps CSM. Stay tuned.

The timing of the announcement is telling. Usually bad news is saved for Friday afternoons, so it gets lost in the pre-weekend shuffle. Did CGSH view its bonus numbers as potentially disappointing to the recipients?

Perhaps. In our reader poll on the Cravath bonuses, a majority of respondents said the CSM bonuses made them either “unhappy” or “very unhappy” (the most popular choice). Approximately 30 percent said the bonuses made them “neither happy nor unhappy.” Under 20 percent said the bonuses made them “happy” or “very happy.”

The Cleary memo and another READER POLL, after the jump.

Lately, Big Law firms have been changing their salary structures more often than associates can keep up with. With an increasing number of firms abandoning lockstep compensation, associates have been left in the dark about what compensation levels actually are.

This week, our ATL / Lateral Link survey asks for your help to track the latest changes to starting salaries and the salary ranges for firms that have moved away from lock-step compensation. We’ll use the information to update the ATL Career Center and bring you the results next week.

If you have information about your firm that you want to share with other Career Center users, please email us at careercenter@abovethelaw.com.

Year-end bonuses have been announced at the market-leading firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. And they are even lower than last year’s Cravath bonuses.

But look, this is 2009. Welcome to the Great Recession. Your true bonus is: you get to keep your job. That shouldn’t be taken for granted, even at Cravath.

Anyway, here’s the Cravath bonus scale for 2009 (via the WSJ Law Blog):

Class of 2008 — $7,500
Class of 2007 — $10,000
Class of 2006 — $15,000
Class of 2005 — $20,000
Class of 2004 — $25,000
Class of 2003 — $30,000
Class of 2002 — $30,000

Cravath’s bonus announcement is always important because the market tends to follow Cravath — as it did last year. Skadden’s 2008 bonuses, at roughly twice Cravath’s levels, were ignored.

Could this year be different? Are the Cravath bonus levels low enough such that a firm of similar or even lower prestige will try to better CSM? Or will other Biglaw shops simply avail themselves of the political cover provided by Cravath — which is arguably what happened last year, when Skadden’s generous bonuses went unmatched (excluding Wachtell)?

So, readers, what do you think? Read the FULL MEMO, take a READER POLL, and COMMENT — after the jump.

Tipsters report that Goldman Sachs — they of the magnanimous bonuses — has sent the word out that holiday parties will be canceled this year. Even “personally funded” parties are being discouraged.

If that is what is happening at mighty Goldman, what paltry party offerings can Biglaw associates expect?

Last year’s season can best be summed up by Cravath. Usually the firm shindig is at the Rainbow Room. Last year, the party was at the firm cafeteria.

Cravath also canceled its biennial “Cravath Prom” last year. Is there any indication that the good times are coming back to Cravath?

What are the party prospects elsewhere? I would think “surviving 2009” would be a great theme for this year’s extravaganzas, if anybody has any money lying around to be extravagant with.

Perhaps I’m expecting too much? Will this holiday party season involve more coals than diamonds? Tell us what you think in the comments.

Earlier: Cravath Continues to Think Ahead

* Somebody call up the Cornell School of Hotel Administration and get them to teach their people how travelers actually use computers. [Drug and Device Law]

* Police can search your email without telling you. Bring it on coppers, bring it on. [True/Slant]

* If your Biglaw career has stalled, maybe you should become a CPA. [Going Concern]

* An Indiana law school dean is getting pushed out because he is too old. Peyton Manning, welcome to your future. [Law Librarian Blog]

* Is a globally integrated law firm that provides one-stop shopping still a viable business model? I don’t know, Wal-Mart seems to be doing just fine. [Ideoblog]

* I didn’t know water intoxication existed. It doesn’t sound nearly as fun as regular intoxication. [ABA Journal]

* Don’t forget to come down and poke me with sticks meet me in Atlanta on Monday. [Georgia Association for Women Lawyers]

We know there is a gender gap in Biglaw partnerships. But according to a new survey from the National Association of Women Lawyers, there is also a business generation gap between female and male partners. The Legal Intelligencer reports:

Whether this new statistic, measured in the latest survey by the National Association of Women Lawyers, can be seen as the fault of the firm or the fault of women lawyers themselves is a question the survey didn’t answer….

According to the survey results 46 percent of large law firms have no women at all among their top 10 rainmakers. Almost another third, or 32 percent, have only one woman on that list. About 15 percent of large firms have two women among their top rainmakers and 6 percent have three or four in the top 10. About 72 percent of large firms have no women at all among the top five rainmakers in the firm, the survey results showed.

“The results are astounding, even to those of us familiar with the dynamics of legal business development,” NAWL said in its report on the survey.

The raw data doesn’t provide a concrete reason for this gap. But there are a lot of theories.

As many of you know, public interest organizations around the country benefited from the recession’s effects on Biglaw. There are many talented graduates of top law schools working in public interest — and being paid by the firms who have no work for them.

It’s a pretty sweet deal for cash-strapped public interest organizations. Some of them don’t want the good times to end. The ABA Journal reports:

Some lawyers are suggesting that sending new lawyers into the field is such a good idea that it shouldn’t be dropped when the recession ends. One of them is Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The programs were “a creative response by the firms to what was a very ugly crisis,” Arnwine told AP. “My wish going forward is that what you can do in bad times you can do in good times.”

My wish going forward is that the sea people come and “take me away from this crappy goddamn planet full of hippies.” I think my wish will come true before Barbara Arnwine’s.

Don’t get me wrong, it would be awesome if there were some sort of training ground where new attorneys could learn some basic lawyering skills. If the training were really good, I bet young attorneys would even pay for the opportunity to be educated. Too bad we don’t have any kind of system of schools that can competently prepare people entering into the legal profession.

Public Interest Lawyer Says Loaned Associates Should Be Permanent Program [ABA Journal]

Deal work isn’t just about substance. Style points will help you go far, at least according to Jim Woolery of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. In an interview he gave to the Dallas Morning News (gavel bang: ABA Journal), Woolery explains that his success is due in part to his ability to look like a New Yorker but talk like a Texan:

“They like me in Texas because I’m from this fancy New York law firm, but I talk Texan,” says the 40-year-old partner of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. “When [Dallas attorney] Phil Smith from McKool Smith tells me, ‘Things are going to get Westerned,’ I know he means things are going to get sideways or upside down.”

My friends, this is why it is important to have diversity in the partnership ranks. Sometimes you need a guy like Woolery to make that special Love Connection.

Just how much has Woolery’s western charm been worth to Cravath?

Last Friday, we reported on stealth layoffs at Nixon Peabody. We’ve previously discussed the difficulty of reporting stealth layoffs. If a firm lays people off slowly, over a long period of time, and refuses to admit it, sometimes the firm can keep the information from becoming public. In the Nixon Peabody case, the firm has still not confirmed the layoff news (unlike Foley & Lardner, which got around to confirming the layoffs we reported on last Friday just yesterday). But Nixon also hasn’t called us asking us to correct anything, which firms often do when they believe we’ve erred. The tipsters who have been laid off from Nixon continue to maintain that they were laid off from Nixon.

In any event, apparently some people think that reporting on people losing their jobs is more hype than substance. Tipsters sent in this post from 3 Geeks and a Law Blog:

Back in February, when the big round of layoffs were taking place, I took it upon myself to take a snapshot of most of the AmLaw 100 rosters via their websites. Nixon Peabody, of course, was one of these. So, I thought I’d dust off that list and compare it to today’s roster of employees. What I found was pretty interesting, but didn’t seem to be as dire as I’ve been reading in ATL or Law Shucks.

A firm’s website is only one part of the story, but let’s check out that part of the story, after the jump.

If you have a job these days, especially a job at a high-paying law firm, you should be grateful, right? Right.

But that doesn’t mean work is all sunshine and lollipops. Many attorneys continue to experience a high amount of stress, which often manifests itself in the form of illness. A friend who works at a law firm sent us this suggestion:

I’m swamped, but I had to run out of the office for a doctor’s appointment. I was diagnosed with an ulcer last year, and apparently it still hasn’t healed.

Maybe you should do an ATL piece on ostensibly stress-related illnesses suffered by attorneys. What are some of the most “popular” maladies suffered by attorneys at an inappropriately young age?

Good question. Take our survey, and a stroll through the various maladies that have afflicted Elie Mystal, after the jump.