There have been lots of law firm "mini-mergers" in the past month or so. In addition to the two mentioned here -- Husch Blackwell Sanders + Welsh & Katz, and Troutman Sanders + Ross, Dixon & Bell -- most of Schwartz Cooper of Chicago recently got swallowed up by Dykema, and Ballard Spahr acquired IP boutique Needle & Rosenberg, of Atlanta.

Today brings the possibility of another non-mega merger -- or acquisition, to put it more accurately. From Am Law Daily:

Atlanta law firm Alston & Bird is in talks to acquire Los Angeles-based firm Weston Benshoof.

If a deal between the firms is finalized, the combination would give 800-attorney Alston, which has six domestic offices, an outpost in California. The move follows the West Coast expansion of another Atlanta firm, King & Spalding, which opened offices in Silicon Valley and San Francisco earlier this year. Presently 20 attorneys work at King's two California offices.

Altson's potential merger with Weston would instantly give it 80 California attorneys specializing in litigation, real estate development, and environmental law.

Some ATL readers think the California legal market is best avoided these days. But Alston & Bird apparently disagrees.

Lately we've been hearing lots of law firm merger rumors -- and some of them involve firms you've actually heard of. If you have a merger rumor you'd like to pass along for investigation, please email us. Thanks.

Alston in Merger Talks with Weston Benshoof [Am Law Daily]
LaSalle's law firm disappears [Chicago Tribune]
Ballard Spahr Acquires Atlanta IP Boutique [American Lawyer]

Earlier: Law Firm Merger Mania: Two More Medium-Sized Mergers

The American Lawyer's A-List rankings were recently released (as noted the other day by a commenter, and mentioned by tipsters over email). And some of you want to talk about them:

Happy to see my firm as part of the list. Sad to see so little A-list coverage this year!

Take this post as our attempt to remedy the problem. In case you're not familiar with the A-List rankings, here is the explanation accompanying the latest rankings:

It's A-List season at The American Lawyer. For the sixth year, we applied the A-List algorithm to The Am Law 200 to determine the firms that best embody what it means to be a success in the legal community....

Our methodology for determining the A-List is relatively simple. We rank firms in four categories: revenue per lawyer, pro bono hours, associate satisfaction, and diversity representation. The higher the rank, the more points a firm scores.

In sum, as the American Lawyer previously explained, "[w]e hope to determine, as objectively as possible, the firms that have been able to build successful practices without abandoning the profession's core values. We want to recognize the firms that have achieved the best balance of private gain, public service, workforce diversity, and quality of life."

Who made the cut this year? Check out the top 10, and discuss the latest rankings, after the jump.

Okay, they're not really "new"; they were issued last month, which is when we started getting blast emails from law firms touting their strong showings. But as TaxProf Blog recently reminded us, the influential Chambers USA rankings, of law firms and individual attorneys, are now available.

If you're not familiar with them, the Chambers rankings are explained well in this New York Observer piece, from 2005, by Anna Schneider-Mayerson:

In a market choked with legal directories consisting solely of the dry vitae and coordinates of the top practitioners, the [Chambers USA guide], a real doorstop at nearly 1,500 pages, has a colorful Zagat-style take on the field. It not only ranks the top dogs in each field of law, pitting them against each other in neat little blue charts, it also assesses the lawyers who make it onto its lists, complete with coddling commentary from clients and peers.... It's perfect for lawyers: rational and ordered, yet gossipy in its own guarded and libel-checked way. And taken as a whole, it's becoming the field guide par excellence to Manhattan's legal set.

If you have any thoughts on this year's rankings -- who was justly praised, who got shafted, who's overrated, who received amusing / snarky comments from reviewers -- feel free to share, in this open thread.

Chambers USA law firm and lawyer rankings [official website]
Law Firm Corporate Tax Rankings [TaxProf Blog]
I'll See You in Chambers! Lawyers Ga-Ga for Guide [New York Observer]

That's the subject of this fun little piece by Kim Isaac Eisler, in Washingtonian magazine. There aren't that many ways to write about law firms -- after a while, all the articles start to sound the same -- so new and quirky takes like Eisler's are especially welcome.

Here's an excerpt:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Feuding brothers grow up in a dysfunctional household, constantly boxing and picking on each other. One, William Bennett, becomes a prominent Republican, while the other, Skadden's Robert Bennett, defends a Democratic president who bears some striking similarities to Eddie Haskell.

Show: Leave It to Beaver.

You can read the rest -- which features, among other Biglaw shops, Dickstein Shapiro, McDermott Will & Emery, Williams & Connolly, and WilmerHale -- by clicking here.

On the boutique firm front, there's a nice shout-out to Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and his fabulous wife, Victoria Toensing, of diGenova & Toensing. As we can attest from firsthand experience, they're a lot of fun to sit with at a dinner party, with Joe diGenova offering irreverent, under-his-breath running commentary on the dinner speaker.

Cue the Theme Song . . . If Law Firms Were Sitcoms [Washingtonian]

What's going on over at Heller Ehrman? Darned if we know.

But we don't feel that bad about our ignorance, since even people who work at Heller are in the dark. From the first post in a popular ATL Community thread (btw, nice use of the Community section):

I have noticed that there have been an increased number of hush-hush conversations going on around our office, and I'm sure its happening elsewhere as well. The big questions: are we merging? when will the announcement be?

Good questions. We've reached out to the firm's spokesperson, with whom we've been in contact over the past few weeks, but haven't heard back yet.

Here are the broad outlines of the Heller situation. Lately there have been some very significant partner departures from the firm -- about 35 in the past year, including two top members of the firm's insurance recovery practice, who recently left for Covington & Burling.

As is often the case at firms with lots of partner turnover -- whether it's causation or correlation is an open question -- merger rumors have been swirling around Heller. Despite lots of buzz, contemplated combinations involving Winston & Strawn and Proskauer Rose have not come to pass.

The latest merger candidate: Baker & McKenzie. Read more, after the jump.

Over at the Legal Profession Blog, Professor Jeff Lipshaw has some helpful advice about choosing between transactional and litigation work. Lipshaw, who has worked in both worlds -- before academia, he practiced at a large firm (Dykema Gossett) and served as general counsel for two corporations -- has lots of excellent insights to offer.

Our favorite part was his discussion of how personality might affect practice choice:

Are you a win-lose kind of person or a win-win kind of person? Great trial lawyers are sublimated warriors. Winning a trial or decimating a witness in cross-examination is the thrill of conquest and vanquishing. If you are not that kind of person, it can wear on you. Personally, I realized ten years into a litigation career, (a) I wanted to be liked (if not loved) too much to be a conqueror, (b) dealing with the opponents' conception of the truth (opening up the other side's brief and reading it, for example) was frustrating and hard on my blood pressure, and (c) as I discuss below, once you get beyond the adrenaline rush that causes your eyeballs to pop out of your head (some people like that), the way trials work in cases that big firms do can be kind of . . . boring.

On the flip side, negotiating transactions is also "adversarial" in a way, and a lot of it is about winning points. Just like a litigator can't win without good facts and good witnesses, a transactional lawyer can't make points without exogenous business leverage. For example, even in a "friendly" business combination involving public companies, there are a series of points negotiated between the acquirer and the target that have to do with how tied up the deal is....

The bane of a transactional lawyer's existence... is an adversary who seems more intent on winning "lawyer points" than getting the deal done. One aspect of creativity in deal lawyering, it seems to me, is knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em - how to concede the points you don't need, or trade them for the ones you do.

You can -- and should, if you're confronting the transactional-versus-litigation choice yourself -- read the full post over here. Good stuff.

One additional point, after the jump.

These days we spend a lot of our time chasing down rumors of attorney and staff layoffs at large law firms. It's a sign of the times.

Over at Adam Smith, Esq., lawyer and law-firm consultant Bruce MacEwen has compiled a helpful tally of acknowledged layoffs by major law firms. But note his caveat, which we also adopt: "I have not been able to include firms that have implemented stealth layoffs or, inhumanely, dismissed associates for "performance" reasons when that was actually not the case."

Many of the layoff rumors we hear turn out to be false, some of them comically so (like the one about a firm that supposedly laid off 40 associates, but has actually had just three depart, voluntarily, year to date). But some gossip turns out to have a certain amount of truth to it.

We recently heard that D.C.-based powerhouse Patton Boggs, known for its leading lobbying and administrative / regulatory practices, laid off four associates in its Dallas office. We reached out to the firm for comment.

A spokesperson for the firm, Rebecca Carr, stated that "eight to nine" associates were "let go" firm-wide. She didn't provide a precise breakdown in terms of offices of practice areas of the affected associates (so we're not sure about that Dallas number). She resisted characterizing these personnel changes as "layoffs" per se, chalking them up to "a combination of factors."

"For the past eight years, we have done mid-year evaluations of associates," Ms. Carr explained. "We evaluate them and determine whether or not there's a good fit. This year the state of the economy is somewhat soft, which made us take a harder look when conducting our evaluations."

"We made decisions to let go associates where we didn't feel we'd have enough work to keep them employed here," she said. "It's not a reflection on their work at all or on them. It's just that we have to take a harder look this year."

"Given the state of the economy, we don't have the luxury of carrying folks who aren't going to make it here, whom we don't think are going to be a good long-term fit," Ms. Carr added. "Patton Boggs is having a very good year. But the economy is soft, and we have to tread carefully in a soft economic climate."

Finally, in response to questions from us, she stated that no cuts have been made to staff ranks or to lawyers more senior than associates (like partners or of counsel).

We thank Ms. Carr for the information, and we commend Patton Boggs for its candor. We suspect that many other Biglaw shops, due to tough economic times, are ratcheting up standards when it comes to performance reviews. Most of these firms chalk up the subsequent dismissals as purely due to performance issues. But if they were going to be more honest, they'd admit (as Patton has) that the definition of "good performance" changes when the economy is weak.

If you have layoff information -- not rumor, which we hear a lot of, but hard info -- that hasn't been previously reported in these pages, please email us (subject line: "Nationwide Layoff Watch"). Thanks.

Update: More info about the Patton Boggs layoffs appears over at Tex Parte.

A Modest Suggestion re Associate Layoffs [Adam Smith, Esq.]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of layoffs (scroll down)

This week brings more law firm merger news. These two deals are hardly earth-shattering, but they are noteworthy (and coincidentally both involve firms with "Sanders" somewhere in their name -- the Colonel would be proud).

One of them may create a new Am Law 100 firm, as noted today by the American Lawyer:

The recently merged Husch Blackwell Sanders has merged once again, this time with Chicago-based intellectual property litigation boutique Welsh & Katz, the firms announced Monday. If ranked today, the combined firm, now called Husch Blackwell Sanders Welsh & Katz, would place 88th on The American Lawyer's Am Law 100 list, according to their combined gross revenues.

Firm co-chair David Fenley says the gross revenue will "be a smidgen beyond $300 million" in 2008, which, if ranked today, would place it above Pepper Hamilton's current $297 million, the firm with the 88th-highest revenue in 2007, and below Littler Mendelson's $305 million, which placed 87th.

The shops sound well-matched:

Both their personalities and the firm cultures meshed, adds [managing partner A. Sidney] Katz. For one, neither firm maintains any debt. And both firms focus on attorneys' quality of life above profitability, he explains. Further, profits per partner at both firms are in the $600,000 to $700,000 range and Husch agreed to take on all of Welsh's 14 equity principals (the firm is organized as a corporation) as equity partners.

Ah, the elusive "quality of life." Our second featured merger, combining Troutman Sanders (Am Law #75) and Ross Dixon & Bell, led one tipster to express concern on that front:

It just seems a little alarming that all the mid-size and smaller firms are getting gobbled up. Makes me wonder if it's even possible to have a smaller "quality of life" firm (which is how Ross Dixon billed itself when it spun off from Hogan). (See also Kelley Drye buying out Collier Shannon Scott in DC).

From this morning's press release announcing the deal:

The law firms of Troutman Sanders LLP and Ross, Dixon & Bell, LLP announced today they will merge, creating a 750-attorney firm with national and international reach and unparalleled depth.

The merger, approved by the partnerships at both firms and effective Jan. 1, 2009, combines Troutman Sanders' multi-faceted corporate, finance, litigation, real estate and public policy practices with Ross, Dixon & Bell's exceptional insurance, professional liability and commercial litigation practices, among other synergies.... The merged firm will be named Troutman Sanders LLP and will remain headquartered in Atlanta. It will have about 1,700 employees.

More opinions on the Troutman Sanders / Ross Dixon combination, plus links to articles and press releases, below the fold.

We didn't forget to do a post today about a career alternative for attorneys -- a job open to JDs who can't get or don't want to work as a law firm associate or contract attorney. Our latest featured gig: conflicts analyst.

What's a conflicts analyst? A tipster explains:

I worked in the Conflicts department at a large firm before and during law school. They hire people with JDs to review and resolve conflicts resulting from both general daily intake (partner in NYC wants to sue X and has no idea that partner in SF represents X) and from mergers (firm sued Y in 1999, but prospective new acquisition represents Y in all its patent work - is this a conflict? do we need waivers?).

What are the pluses and minuses of conflicts analyst work?

The hours are usually decent, depending on the firm and whether or not there are a lot of mergers going on. It depends on the firm, you may be treated with respect by the practicing attorneys, or you may be treated like annoying red tape between them and a big bonus.

If this potential path interests you, read more after the jump.

We resume our series of open threads on career alternatives for attorneys. If you have a law degree, but can't get into / aren't interested in Biglaw or contract attorney work, what are some other good options?

One of you snarkily suggested manager at Legal Sea Foods (which, by the way, has excellent clam chowder). But in an effort to cabin the universe of possibilities, we're going to focus on fields where a law degree adds significant value or is at least somewhat relevant.

Thus far we've discussed working as a law librarian or for a major accounting firm, two fields popular with holders of J.D. degrees. If you have a suggested alternative career path, please email us (subject line: "Career Alternatives"), and include some basic info about the field that you're nominating (e.g., how to get into it, pluses and minuses, salary data, etc.).

Today we're going to focus on the people who bring you aboard in Biglaw: law firm recruiting coordinators (or, to use the NALP terminology, "legal recruitment and attorney management professionals"). They're the law firm employees who work with law schools to set up the fall interviewing process, coordinate on-campus and callback interviews, run summer associate programs (read: plan awesomely fun events for aspiring pro wrestlers), and generally oversee the process of hiring and recruiting qualified attorneys at major law firms.

(Note: Also falling under the broad terms "legal recruiter" or "recruiting professional" are people who work for legal search firms / headhunters -- e.g., Kinney, Lateral Link, Mestel. We'll discuss them in a future post.)

If you're curious about opportunities in law firm recruiting departments, read more, after the jump.

In prior installments of the Asia Chronicles, we've discussed the pros and cons of working as an American attorney in Asia, how to choose a law firm to work for, and the importance of language skills. Thus far we have been focusing on how to get over to Asia, but many of you have also been asking: "What happens if I want to come back?"

While most of the Asia Corporate Lawyers have sworn that we're never going to work anywhere else (as Biglaw attorneys at least), we didn't always know that we were going to want to stay here in Asia indefinitely. As brand-new associates, we worried that if we came out too early in our careers or spent too much time here, we might somehow fall behind our U.S. peers, be permanently labeled the "Asia" guys, or even be left with no career options beyond delivering pizzas upon returning to America. But it turns out there was no need to worry; in fact, we think that in some ways we are getting better training and experience than we would have in New York.

Let's get one thing straight from the beginning: American attorneys in Asia only practice U.S. law, not local law (unless they also happen to be admitted to the local bar), so fundamentally they work with the same laws and regulations as they would in the U.S. If local law enters into a deal, then local counsel will be hired to advise on it. So while U.S. attorneys in Asia may pick up some knowledge about local laws in passing, and even informally advise on it, their main task is to advise on U.S. law, just as their counterparts in the U.S. do. Most commonly, they will advise on U.S. federal securities laws and New York contract law and, to a lesser extent, U.S. tax law and state corporate laws. Of course, much of an attorney's work has nothing to do with the law, and U.S. lawyers in Asia also spend much of their time drafting and reviewing documents, conducting due diligence, and generally protecting their clients' interests.

So if the work and the laws are basically the same, what is different about working in Asia?

Read more, below the fold.

Back in December, we conducted a survey focusing on how busy those of you who work for large law firms were. The results were somewhat comforting. A majority of you said work at your firms was not slow, and 78 percent of you said you weren't afraid of losing your job.

That was about seven months ago. Have times changed? In addition to all the recent law-firm layoffs, here is some anecdotal evidence that they have:

Given the hard economic times, you guys should do a story about associates that have no work. And I'm not talking about light billable hours, but NO WORK.

I work for [a large firm] and I'm currently relegated to surfing the internet, reading ATL, and looking for new incarnations of ceiling cat. I've begged and pleaded with partners to give me work, but to no avail.

I'd be curious what other associates around the country who are slow are doing to drum up work or, better yet, kill time.

Have any suggestions for this frustrated reader? This person already knows about legal blogs as a procrastination aid. Given the uncertain economy, online shopping binges probably aren't smart. IM'ing with friends at other firms is fun, but not everyone has that option.

If you know of other ways to pass the non-billable time -- and please, safe-for-work proposals only -- feel free to share them in the comments. Thanks.

We've received over 900 responses to our ATL / Lateral Link surveys on the lengths and lunches of summer programs.

Today, in honor of David Lat's Above The Lard Project Truman Show, let's focus on the caloric part of the results: lunch.

Associates seem to be of two minds on the summer associate lunch. Some commenters view the lunches as a positive perk . . . sort of:

The perks are important. Lunches and events are how you meet and get to know the associates and partners at the firm. Anyone who has ever lateraled can tell you how hard it is to meet the people around you when all you do is work (and forget about meeting anyone in another practice group). I don't know if it's a good investment, but it at least brightens the miserable halls of the firm for a couple weeks a year. All the lawyers pretend that working at a law firm is really like what we hoped it would be when we were law students. It's nice.

Others, however, view the care and feeding of summer associates as an unwanted drain on their time:

As an associate, I don't want to be obligated to take summers to lunches, and I don't care about free lunches myself.

What I do want is to be left the hell alone during those daytime hours so that I can do the work I am being paid to do, which will allow me to leave two hours earlier than I otherwise would each day.

Summers are a hassle. They all want to go to lunch for two hours each day, and then when they go to happy hour or whatever event each night at 6:00, the associates get to stay in their offices billing the time that the summers stole from them earlier in the day.

Whether they're good or bad, though, one thing's clear: summer lunches are pretty pricey:

  * About a third of respondents said that their firms had a budget of more than $50 per person when lunching with summer associates, and seven percent of respondents said their firms imposed no limit at all.

  * Ten percent of respondents said that their firms impose a $50 per person budget.

  * Ten percent of respondents said that their firms will reimburse $40 or $45 per person.

  * Seventeen percent of respondents may spend $30 or $35 per person.

  * Twelve percent of respondents may spend up to $25 per person.

The rest have lower budgets or no budget at all. On the bright side, though, their clothes are more likely to fit at the end of the summer.

Despite the expense, summer associates expect frequent feedings:

  * Roughly nineteen percent expect to have lunch with their firm's lawyers five times a week.

  * A quarter plan on lunching four times a week. The same number expect lunch three times a week, and another quarter will settle for lunch a mere two times weekly.

  * Five percent of summer associates think they'll only have lunch with the attorneys once a week.

  * A lonely one percent of summer associates don't think they'll have lunch with the firm's attorneys at all.

As the comment above would suggest, however, full-time associates are not nearly as enthusiastic about all that lunch time.

  * Eleven percent don't expect to have lunch with the summer associates at all.

  * Fifty-four percent expect to do lunch once a week.

  * A quarter will have lunch twice a week.

  * Seven percent will have lunch three times a week.

  * Only three percent will have lunch four or five times a week.

Perhaps the firms should budget coffee runs instead?

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

In this fifth installment of the Asia Chronicles, we continue with our theme from last week. You've decided that you want to practice law in Asia... So now what?

Many people, including the Asia Corporate Lawyers, started law school thinking that they might someday like to work in Asia, but didn't understand how to achieve that goal or what kind of work such a career would really involve. As 1Ls, convinced that law practice was all about not confusing impleader and interpleader, we had vague ideas of becoming jet-setting international arbitrators or prosecutors for INTERPOL. As 2Ls, our job search was conducted in the same spirit of blissful ignorance, as we simply printed out the Vault prestige rankings and eliminated any firm that did not have an Asian office (allowing us the pleasure of summarily rejecting Wachtell), giving extra points to lower-ranked firms with strong international presence. We still shudder to think that one of our most coveted offers at the time was Coudert Brothers, as it had 28 offices worldwide (Hanoi, Jakarta and Almaty, oh my!).

Now, as sadder but wiser mid-level corporate associates, we hope to enlighten job-seeking law students or lateral attorneys with some hard-won advice when it comes to choosing a law firm with the goal of someday making it to Asia:

1. Number of international offices does not equal stronger international practice or more opportunities for American lawyers to work abroad. When selecting law firms that you want to interview with, don't just look at where they have offices; also look at who is working at those offices. Check the attorney roster on the website. Are the only U.S.-qualified lawyers in the firm partners, with most or all of the associates being foreign-qualified attorneys? Does it seem that most or all of the associates are native speakers of the local language? If you don't see many attorneys with backgrounds similar to yours, there's a good chance that the firm won't be able to use you in that office.

2. Is the firm a "franchise" firm, or one with a uniform and centralized structure? Firms vary in the way in which they manage their international offices. Certain firms, like the top New York firms, are fairly involved in the management of their overseas operations. Payroll and hiring in Asia at these firms all run through New York at some point. For other firms, the international offices act more like self-contained units.

Why does this matter? Little things like technology upgrades/solutions and expense reimbursements may take longer or be more frustrating to deal with at New York-centric firms. On the other hand, a less integrated firm may not offer its lawyers the opportunity to easily access the resources of the entire firm.

3. Should you work for a British firm? Many British law firms have historically been involved in the Asia market longer than their U.S. counterparts. This may mean that some British firms have a broader or more established practice in your area of interest. You should be aware, though, that there are distinct cultural differences between British and U.S. firms. For starters, U.S. lawyers working at British firms in Asia are usually compensated on a different (higher) payscale than their colleagues at the same firm, which can lead to some friction between the U.S. and non-U.S. lawyers. As a U.S. lawyer at a British firm, you may also be completely shut out from certain types of deals. For example, in the capital markets realm, U.S. lawyers for British firms work mostly on the limited Rule 144A/Regulation S aspects of securities offerings. British firms would almost never be hired to work on U.S. IPO mandates.

For some perspective on these points, as usual, we turned to Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting. According to Evan, "The U.S. prestige rankings of firms, although important for any lateral candidate to consider, do not necessarily carry over to Asia, as many variables are involved in whether a firm is well-positioned in a particular Asia region. Also, the length of time an office has been in place and the number of attorneys in an office can be misleading with regard to how established a U.S. firm is in an Asia market and its future potential there. Some other important factors to consider are a firm's expansion plans in the region, whether there is a senior partner in place who is well-connected in the country at issue, and the quality of support in the U.S. for primary practice areas."

Robert adds, "Keep in mind that most firms are structured such that if an associate is well-regarded and his or her practice group in the U.S. is busy, an internal move out to Asia is not likely to be supported by the partners immediately responsible for that associate, so a lateral move may be necessary anyway." Thus, according to Evan, "it may not be prudent for a law student to try to choose a U.S. office based in large part on a potential down-the-road internal move to Asia. Relevant training is more important."

Regarding the "British vs. American" debate, Evan points out that he knows U.S. groups within the British firms that are thriving, making their own hiring and partnership decisions, and a great choice for the right candidate. At the same time, he says, "there are a couple of the top U.K. firms whose first question to us is sometimes whether a candidate is expecting to get a U.S. salary and housing allowance. It's those firms where I think the cultural gulf is wider."

So how can you tell where you will find a fit? According to Robert, "It is often the case that looking at the website bios of attorneys at a firm can give you some notion of who might be willing to consider you. But we also have clients who are looking to add a different sort of lawyer to the mix of attorneys within their firm. These days we are seeing clients transfer attorneys from their U.S. offices because they are underutilized there. The attorneys that they transfer sometimes have completely different backgrounds from what might be considered ideal by the partners in the office they transfer to."

Next week we will discuss a question that confronts many law students and junior associates thinking of working in Asia. Is it better to go straight out of law school, or to get a few years of experience practicing in the U.S.?

You know where to find us: asiacorporatelawyers at gmail dot com.

*****************
Kinney Recruiting has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years.

[Disclosure: Kinney is the sponsor of this post.]

Sigh. We hate it when news breaks late on a Friday before a holiday weekend.

But we won't let the timing stop us from giving this the attention it deserves. We'll do an update post next week, after everyone is back from the Memorial Day holiday weekend. We've also contacted Phil Telfeyan -- we've known he was the Note author for quite some time, thanks to our Harvard Law School sources -- and requested an interview.

We have to head out now. If you're still stuck in front of your computer, instead of enjoying the long weekend, check out the links below.

Comment: Mea Culpa by Phil Telfeyan [comment]
HLS Wins National Appellate Advocacy Competition [Harvard Law Record]
HLS students win national ABA moot court competition [Harvard Law School]
A Man of Many Hats [Harvard Crimson]

In January, after the Harvard Law Review published a rather embarrassing, bleeding-heart Case Comment, we wrote:

Last year, we ran a popular series of posts on the Harvard Law Review. The gist of the coverage was that the Review's new, left-leaning leadership "is running the journal into the ground with a cabal of radical ideologues, making the outgoing editors nervous about the future reputation of the journal."

We got some flak for our HLR coverage. But in view of what the Review is publishing these days, as discussed extensively in the blogosphere -- see, e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy and PrawfsBlawg -- we can't help gloating. Just a little.

Or a lot. A tipster draws our attention to a Note that was just published in the latest issue of the HLR:

I think you should break this story. It is a guaranteed comment clusterf**k.

This Note (PDF) basically says that anyone who doesn't go in to public interest work is immoral and is killing babies in third world countries (most of this analysis is in section 4 of the article). I think it just came out in electronic form today, so you should get a jump on anyone.

Our correspondent's summary is shockingly accurate. Check out the article for yourself by clicking here (PDF).

As it turns out, we're not the first to take note of the Note. We believe that would be Professor Paul Horwitz, over at PrawfsBlawg. After alluding to the notorious Case Comment from several months ago, Professor Horwitz writes:

I am reading the latest issue of the Harvard Law Review [which contains] a Note titled, after an inscription on a statue in Cambridge Common, "Never Again Should a People Starve in a World of Plenty." It's unusually thinly sourced for a Harvard Law Review Note -- not that I'm encouraging people to use more footnotes! And it has a certain voice ("There is injustice everywhere. The last place there should be injustice is in the justice system.") and theme that . . . . well, I find myself wondering whether we have found our anonymous author once again.

I don't mean to be unduly gossipy about this sort of thing; it's worth a two-paragraph blog post and not more. And I am not knocking the observation that injustice is bad; heaven forfend. Just the same, I'm curious whether this is the same author.

We don't share Professor Horwitz's shyness. We're happy to write more than two paragraphs about the Note (ha -- we already have). And there's no such thing as being "unduly gossipy" in our book.

So gossip away, in the comments. Do you think this Note was written by the same author as the prior Case Comment? Do you feel that the Harvard Law Review -- once headed by Senator Barack Obama, its first black president -- is tilting too far to the left?

Or, if you prefer, don't gossip; engage substantively with the arguments in the Note. Clearly the author wants associates and partners in large law firms to sit up and take notice, to think about whether what they're doing professionally is worthwhile -- or even morally defensible.

We're sure the anonymous author will be grateful to us for bringing his or her work to the attention of ATL's many readers in Biglaw. Whoever you are: you're welcome!

That's a question that our friends at the ABA Journal are planning to tackle in a forthcoming article. Perhaps you can help?

Some background, from reporter Richard Acello:

We're looking to do a story on law firms' tech savvy or lack thereof. At a recent technology conference, some IT people complained about how their technological requirements were just not accepted by the older partners. But the young lawyers, used to more advanced technology, had no problem adapting when changes were made.

We're looking for some examples from associates, as well as suggestions for new associates who come in and are appalled at how backward the tech is at their law firms. Yes, we will allow anonymity.

You can email Rich Acello, the writer on the story, at richace at cox dot net. Also feel free to comment on this post if you have some thoughts on law firms and how "with it" they are when it comes to tech.

This isn't as sexy as lawyer layoffs and associate pay cuts. But today has been a bit slow on the news front, so we'll take what we can get. From Legal Pad:

Bingham McCutchen just confirmed to us that it laid off staff last week in at least two Bay Area offices -- 12 in San Francisco and five in Silicon Valley.

San Francisco Managing Partner Geoffrey Howard said the S.F. layoffs constituted between 5 and 10 percent of the staff there and affected three departments: support services (e.g. copy/fax, mail room, catering, etc.), accounting and records.

They laid off people in catering? One might expect Bingham to pay increased attention to food and beverage, in the wake of Roofiegate.

Bingham Lays Off Bay Area Staff [Legal Pad]

Props to our friends over at Dewey & LeBoeuf. Sure, Denim Day is great at all, and their wine-and-cheese events sound like a lot -- maybe too much -- fun.

But DL also thinks of the less fortunate. From an internal email that went around recently:

As news of the devastation in China and Myanmar spreads, and in support of our colleagues and clients in Asia, we recognize a responsibility to support and assist the many thousands of individuals and families in need at this time. Current news reports suggest that the massive earthquake in the Sichuan province of China has already claimed the lives of more than 20,000 people, with numbers that could soar to as many as 50,000. The deadly cyclone of the Myanmar delta region has already claimed over 75,000 lives, with more than 55,000 people still missing and over 1 million people in need of aid.

The firm will match all donations made by our lawyers and administrative staff up to $200,000 to the following four funds designated for relief in China and Myanmar....

Perhaps other law firms are undertaking similar efforts? If your firm is, feel free to note that in the comments.

The complete Dewey & LeBoeuf email, including links to four relief organizations that you can support, appears after the jump.

Update: As noted in the comments, Heller Ehrman is one of the firms stepping up to the plate. The firm is matching employee donations to the Red Cross up to a total of $50,000. Memo after the jump.

Earlier this month, there was some discussion in the comments about law firms possibly cutting associate salaries to cope with the economic downturn. The scenario sounded far-fetched -- but maybe it's not as far-fetched as some might have hoped.

Look, we aren't saying that the sky is falling. There's a world of difference between a law firm based in Fort Lauderdale, with 128 lawyers and extensive exposure to Florida real estate, and the giants of Biglaw, with hundreds of millions (or even billions) in revenue, profits per partner well into the seven figures, and diversified practices.

But still, nobody would call this good news. From the Daily Business Review:

Attorneys at Becker & Poliakoff are being hit with a 12 percent pay cut for the foreseeable future to help the real estate-dominated firm deal with a drop in profitability and delays in collections.

Becker & Poliakoff is the first major South Florida firm to turn to its lawyers to make cuts to help it deal with the economic slowdown and real estate downturn. Other firms have trimmed staff jobs, including paralegals and secretaries, and cut back on other expenses to help cope with the economic landscape.

Alan Becker, the firm's managing shareholder, informed attorneys and support staff about the pay deferment plan via podcast Wednesday. The cut took effect Thursday and affects only lawyers. No layoffs are expected.

So that's the silver lining to the proverbial cloud. You've suffered a 12 percent haircut on your salary, but at least your job is secure.

We don't know what the Becker & Poliakoff pay scale is, but we're guessing it's well below the $160K scale. Back in 2003, it looks like their starting salaries were in the $63K-$70K range.

But just out of curiosity, what would Biglaw salaries look like if they were trimmed in this manner? If a 12 percent reduction were applied to the first three steps of the standard New York pay scale, salaries would go from 160-170-185 to 141-150-163.

More discussion, after the jump.